2011 Country visit by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People

In June 2010, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, James Anaya, visited Guatemala at the invitation of the government after the Special Rapporteur delivered a series of allegations of human rights violations relating to the Marlin Mine. During the visit, the Special Rapporteur met with the President of Guatemala, the President of the Constitutional Court, the National Congressional Commission on Indigenous Peoples, the Human Rights Ombudsperson, the Presidential Commission for Coordinating Executive Policy in the Field of Human Rights (COPREDEH), the Presidential Commission on Discrimination and Racism against Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala (CODISRA), the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), the Vice Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), and representatives of the Office for the Defence of Indigenous Women’s Rights (DEMI), along wtih other high-ranking government officials. The Special Rapporteur also visited San Juan Sacatepéquez, San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Huehuetenango, where he held multiple meetings with delegations from indigenous communities and organizations, indigenous ancestral authorities, and comunal and municipal authorities in these regions (Special Rapporteur Report, 2011). 

In July 2011, the Special Rapporteur issued a report, setting out a number of recommendations, including, that: (1) the government of Guatemala develop additional studies on the impacts of the mine on health and the environment with a view towards complying with the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2010 (See the Legal Action, entitled “2007- IACHR petition and precautionary measures regarding Marlin Mine authorization and Mayan communities“, for more detail); (2) that any future operations of the mine be based on a consensus with affected communities after consultation processes that comply with international norms; and (3) the company re-visit its pending legal actions with a view toward creating a climate of trust with communities in the project’s surrounding areas (Ibid).