Title,Content,Subsoil Key Actors Categories,Subsoil Key Actors Names,Subsoil Municipalities,Subsoil Political Action Types,Subsoil Report Types,Subsoil Countries,Subsoil Jurisdictions,Subsoil Natural Resources,Subsoil Regions,Subsoil Types of Legal Actions,Subsoil Violated Rights 2009 – IACHR grants precautionary measures on behalf of community defenders opposing El Dorado mine,"On 7 October, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted precautionary measures to members of the Association Friends of San ISidro (ASIC) and the community Radio Victoria as well as a local priest after they had received threats believed to be in reprisal for their activism in defence of the environment in San Isidro and for filing complaints against the local public administration. The IACHR issued themeasures requesting the Salvadoran State take the necessarystepsto guarantee the safety of the beneficiaries.",Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Association Friends of San ISidro (ASIC)|Radio Victoria|Salvadoran Government,"San Isidro, Cabañas",,,El Salvador,Inter-American System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures,Right to defend rights|Right to safety and personal integrity 2014 Salvadoran NGOs submit information to the Universal Periodic Review,"In 2014, Salvadoran NGOs submitted independent reports to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review process on El Salvador. Amongst a range of human rights issues, the NGOs highlighted the need for the State to strengthen the protection of the right to water of the population and also highlighted the negative environmental and transborder impacts caused by mining projects and called for the government to enact a ban on metallic mining.",Civil Society Organizations|International Organization|State Institutions,Foundation for the Study of the Application of the Law (FESPAD),"San Isidro, Cabañas",,,El Salvador,United Nations System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures, 2014 Permanent People’s Tribunal Hearing,"In June 2014, the Permanent People’s Tribunal held a hearing in Geneva to hear evidence provided by human rights defenders on eight extractive project cases, including El Dorado. The popular tribunal judges heard evidence of the potential impact of the mine on access to water sources and contamination as well as the consequences for agriculture and health. They were also told of Pacific Rim Corporation’s rejection of these allegations and the damages claim filed against the Government of El Salvador for refusing to allow the project to continue. The PPT hearing concluded with a general declaration calling for an international treaty to regulate transnational corporations and for companies to be held to account for violations of human rights, labour and environmental laws.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Non-Governmental Organizations,National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional),"San Isidro, Cabañas",,,El Salvador,Permanent Peoples Tribunal,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health|Right to natural resources|Right to water 2008 CAVS files criminal complaint against Attorney General for obstruction of justice,"In May 2008, CAVS made a criminal complaint against the Attorney General of Guatemala and the Assistant Attorney General for obstruction of justice, delaying justice, abuse of authority and violation of their duties as public officials. The legal action sought thesuspension of the officials from their posts. The complaint did not result in any action against the accused public officials.",Community Representatives|State Institutions,Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"Cedros (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process|Right to health|Right to water 2008 Petition for constitutional protection of the right to medical attention,"On 11 September 2008, a petition for constitution protection (amparo) was filed on behalf of those suffering health consequences from the pollution allegedly caused by the San Martín mine. The petition demanded protection of the right to timely and adequate medical attention for the 64 people in the Siria Valleywhose health had reportedlybeen damaged by the contamination of surface and subterranean water. There is no further information on the outcome of this legal action (IDAMHO andOxfam, 2013:112).",Community Representatives|State Institutions,Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to health 2020 UN Universal Periodic Review of Honduras human rights situation,"In November 2020, Honduras’ human rights record was examined by the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the third time. The review process involved the submission of NGO and other expert reports as well as the country report by the State party on the human rights situation in Honduras. An alliance of Honduran NGOs, the Coalition against Impunity, submitted a report to inform the Human Right’s Council member states of a wide range of human rights concerns, amongst which featured the role of extractive industries in abuses committed against local indigenous and campesino communities, including the human rights defenders imprisoned in relation to the ASP1 ASP2 mining project.The NGO report states that: ""33. The development model promoted by the Government has produced socio-environmental conflicts in extractive and energy projects. Indigenous and peasant communities that have taken resistance actions against extractive projects suffer political persecution, criminalization, and attacks on life and physical and psychological integrity. The State has taken measures to limit access to information in environmental impact studies, thus contributing to secrecy in extractive and energy projects100. 34. One of the most emblematic cases is that of Guapinol, a community that has carried out resistance actions since 2013 against mining projects in Tocoa. The project has been developed despite almost unanimous opposition from the communities. Actions of persecution, harassment, stigmatization, physical and psychological violence by national and local state authorities have been documented101. 12 defenders were taken to court on charges of usurpation, damages, robbery, unjust deprivation of liberty, illicit association and aggravated arson. This case was dismissed after a process plagued with irregularities102. Subsequently, 7 defenders103voluntarily presented themselves to the courts, where the preventive detention measure was issued, with the clear intention of intimidating the many defenders who fight against the extractive model in the country104. 35. The case of Guapinol illustrates the absence of prior, free and informed consultation in extractive projects, despite the fact that Honduras has already ratified ILO Convention 169. The preliminary draft of the Prior Consultation Law has been drafted with a low participation of organizations representing indigenous peoples105, and its content is detrimental to indigenous peoples, diminishing the obligations of the State contained in the Convention"". In March 2021, the UN Human Rights Council published the report of the working group on Honduras, which condenses the concerns and recommendations raised by members of the Council in the peer review process.The recommendations included: ""104.40 Establish accessible, transparent and effective consultation and complaint mechanisms for communities affected by mining and commercial projects (Malaysia); 104.71 Bring to justice and effectively punish the perpetrators of assaults against and killings of human rights defenders, such as the recent killing of the environmental defender of Guapinol (France); 104.78Increase efforts to ensure the independence of the judicial system, strengthening the investigation of and prosecution for acts of corruption and human rights violations, and prevent the criminalization of human rights defenders and community and Indigenous activists to ensure they are able to operate in a safe environment (Canada); 104.81 Ensure the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the alleged human rights violations that occurred during the coup d’état in 2009 and the intellectual and financial authors of the killing of the human rights defender Berta Cáceres (Costa Rica); Address impunity for attacks against human rights defenders and journalists without delay (Japan); Adopt concrete measures to guarantee respect for and protection of the work of human rights defenders and journalists, as well as to ensure that the crimes committed against them are investigated and those responsible are punished effectively and impartially (Ecuador).""",Civil Society Organizations|Foreign Politicians|Multi-Lateral Organizations|State Institutions,Coalition against Impunity (Honduran NGOs),"Tocoa, Colon",,,Honduras,United Nations System,Gold,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to safety and personal integrity 2016- Municipal assemblies vote against mining,"The increasing concern of different communities in the Montaña and Costa Chica region about mining concessions alsoresulted in a parallel legal process using Guerrero State’s municipal lawtoreject mining and prevent authorities endorsing extractive projects. In 2016, municipal level assemblies (cabildos abiertos) were promoted and supervised by CRAADET with the municipal authorities of Malinaltepec and Iliatenco. These resulted in decisions that municipal administrations would not issue change-of-use-of-soil permitsrequiredto allow industrial miningprojects affecting themunicipalities. These were the first municipal level assemblies organized to reject mining (CDMH Tlachinollan, 2016: 169). In 2019, at CRAADET’s 7th anniversary event, the municipal authorities of neighbouring San Luis Acatlán made the commitment to declare their municipality a territory free of mining (for information on indigenous community assemblies see Legal Action entitled “2011- Indigenous communities reject mining in their territories”).",Civil Society Organizations|Community Residents|Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Regional Council of Agrarian Authorities in Defence of the Territory (CRAADET),"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,,Mexico,Mexican System,Gold,Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2005-2006 Company petition for constitutional protection against San Marcos Human Rights Ombudsperson’s resolution,"In March 2005, Montana Exploradora filed for constitutional protection (amparo) against the resolution (EXP.PREVENCIÓN SM.01-2004/D.S.) of the Office of the San Marcos Human Rights Ombudsperson (PDH). The resolution had found that members of the community ofSan Miguel Ixtahuacán and mine workers had suffered human rights violations as a result of the Marlin project. The PDH of Guatemala had also called for the Marlin concession to be rescinded (See Legal Action entitled “2004-2005Human Rights Ombudsperson’s office carries out investigation into Marlin mine”, for more information). The legal action by the company argued, among other things, that the PDH had violated the company's rights to due process by issuing its resolution finding human rights violations committed as a result of the Marlin project concession. However, in March 2006, the Constitutional Court dismissed the company's claim. It concluded that resolutions of the PDH do not give rise to violations in constitutionally protected rights as they do not have binding effect on the authorities they are directed at (Constitutional Court, 2006; Loarca, 2016).",Community Representatives|Company(ies)|State Institutions,"Goldcorp Inc.|Human Rights Ombudsperson (Guatemala)|Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.|San Marcos Human Rights Ombudsperson (PDH)","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health" 2007 Community files legal opposition to Environmental Impact Assessment,"On 17 May 2007, Colectivo Madreselva and members of Asunción Mita municipality (Jutiapa Department) filed their opposition to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) presented by Goldcorp to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN). The same EIA had been presented to and rejected by MARN officials in 2004 and 2005. However, the team responsible for its rejection was replaced. In 2007, when the EIA was resubmitted to MARN, Colectivo Madreselva and local residents filed a petition of opposition to the EIA, raising a series of concerns about its grave inadequacies. These included, among other arguments, that the EIA lacked information on the Cerro Blanco projects’s potential contamination of watercourses and aquifers, with resulting impacts on health, environment, and farming. The opposition also indicated the lack of proper consultation with affected communities. Despite submitting this opposition according to the requirements of the law, Colectivo Madreselva never received a response from MARN or the company regarding mitigation measures to be taken to resolve the issues raised. On 14 August 2007, Entre Mares and Goldcorp were informed that the EIA had been approved by MARN, and in September the same year, MEM granted exploitation rights for the Cerro Blanco mine for 25 years. Experts subsequently detailed flaws in the EIA with MEM and MARN as well as legislators, highlighting the real threats posed by the Cerro Blanco mine, but neither the EIA nor the exploitation licence were ever revoked.",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Company(ies)|State Institutions,Association of Madre Selva|Community Representatives|Goldcorp Inc.|Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process 2019 Meeting in Congress to question government officials on Cerro Blanco,"In December 2019, a Guatemalan congressman convened a working meeting in the Guatemalan Congress to formally question the Ministries of Energy and Mines, Environment and Natural Resources, and Health regarding the health and environmental impacts of the Cerro Blanco mine and Bluestone Resources’ plans to reactivate the project. The meeting was convened in accordance with the congressman’s statutory powers as a member of Congress to formally question ministers of state and obtain information on issues of concern. Members of civil society and the Human Rights Ombudsperson’s Office also participated in the meeting. Representatives of the municipality of Asunción Mita (Department of Jutiapa), including Colectivo Madreselva, argued that the mine was causing high levels of arsenic in water supplies and was a threat to the health of local populations as well as those in neighbouring El Salvador. They also maintained that the concession was illegal as the EIA issued in 2007 failed to incorporate key elements, such as the impact on watercourses, wider environmental and health consequences, and the safety of mine workers, all of which were necessary for an integrated and comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the mine. The state authorities rejected these and other arguments, asserting that the original EIA was legal and valid. However, they failed to produce any information on Bluestone Resources’ plans for the mine and reportedly claimed that they had not received any information from Bluestones Resources or Entre Mares on the measures being taken to reactivate the mine. The working meeting in Congress was convened by the congressman on the basis of the Guatemalan Organic Law of the Legislative Organ. This establishes the power of members of congress to request information from public officials and the obligation on them to respond, as well as the power to require Ministers of State to attend Congress personally to respond to formal questioning under penalty of perjury. Civil society organizations working with members of Congress interested in environmental issues have used these statutory powers to secure the participation of senior officials in meetings in which members of affected communities and representatives of the Human Rights Ombudspersons Office are also present to witness official responses. The failure to respond truthfully potentially exposes the public official to a formal legal complaint of perjury. This mechanism remains one of the few available to officially question public officials in relation to specific issues, such as extractive projects.",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|State Institutions,Association of Madre Selva|Community Residents|Human Rights Ombudsperson|Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to due process|Right to health|Right to safety and personal integrity 2017 Ministry of Energy and Mines requests Montana Exploradora expand environmental closure plan for the Marlin Mine,"In May 2017, the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) requested Montana Exploradora expand the report on environmental closure programme for Marlin mine to include additional information verifying five areas: Closure of all the mine’s surface and subterranean components. Closure of the installations, processing and auxiliary elements for the management of waste and water. Closure of the main infrastructure. Closure of lending bank and other infrastructure related to the project Social closure setting out all commitments made as part of the project.  Goldcorp Guatemala requested MEM provide an extension to comply with the request to avert MEM initiating legal proceedings against Montana Exploradora for non-compliance.",Company(ies)|State Institutions,"Ministry of Economy|Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Administrative Proceedings, 2021 Meeting in Congress to question officials on compliance with IACHR measures,"In September 2021, the deputy, Vicenta Jerónimo, held a meeting in Congress to question representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights (COPADEH) and the Institute of Municipal Development (INFOM) regarding compliance with the precautionary measures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in favour of 18 indigenous communities in the municipalities of Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán, San Marcos Department. The Sipakapense Mayan Council as well as representatives of Tres Cruces and other Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán communities also participated. The deputy reminded the officials that measures required the Guatemalan state to provide uncontaminated water for the purpose of drinking, domestic use, and irrigation to the 18 communities affected by the Marlin mine. Representatives of the communities argued that the State had failed to fulfil its commitment, leaving several communities without adequate access to water resources. The public officials stated that the key element of the State’s commitments was to close the mine, which it had done, and it was continuing with its project to establish the communities’ access to water. The deputy made the commitment to visit the communities herself in November 2021 to assess the situation and to hold another parliamentary meeting at the end of November in which officials would provide a report on progress to ensure the communities’ access to quality water.",Community Representatives|Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,Communities and Victims of Maya Mam and Sipakapense Indigenous Peoples|Congress of Guatemala|Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Presidential Commission for Coordinating Executive Policy in the Field of Human Rights (COPREDEH),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Company Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings|International and Regional Treaties and Procedures,Right to water 2015-2016 Constitutional challenge to Cerro Blanco exploitation licence,"In November 2015, a resident of the municipality of Asunción Mita (Department of Jutiapa, Guatemala), filed a petition to the Guatemalan Supreme Court for constitutional protection (amparo) against the Minister of Energy and Mines for failure to terminate the Cerro Blanco exploitation licence in accordance with the Mining Law. The petition was supported byColectivo Madreselva and sought the involvement of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the Human Rights Ombudsperson in their roles to investigate breaches in the law and protect human rights. The petition argued that article 53, clause d, of the Mining Law required the Minister to terminate the mining rights of a company if an exploitation licence had not resulted over a 12-month period in works directed toward the exploitation of the deposit (“los trabajos tendientes a la explotación del yacimiento”). In the case of Cerro Blanco, despite receiving an exploitation licence in 2007, the mining company had not moved to exploit the mineral deposits over several years. Despite this, MEM had not cancelled the exploitation licence. The petition went on to explain the consequences of maintenance but not exploitation activities in the mine, particularly rock perforation and diverting of geothermal waters into the River Ostúa. This had resulted in contamination of water courses with high levels of arsenic, affecting drinking water and irrigation of agricultural land, impacting the health and livelihoods of local communities in the vicinity of the mine in Guatemala, but also 4 million Salvadorans who depend on waters joining the River Lempa from the Güija Lake. The petition argued that there was no other legal means available to the petitioner to protect his rights as the opposition filed to the Environmental Impact Assessment in 2007 by Colectivo Madreselva had never received a response from the authorities. As a result, the geological problems encountered by Entre Mares and Goldcorp which had led to the suspension of exploitation activity for several years should have resulted in MEM’s cancellation of the licence. The failure to do so had resulted in violations of the rights to life, health, healthy environment, water, and to the protection of the law. The petition argued that the Asunción Mita region was already known for its high levels of arsenic in the environment, but that works at the mine had resulted in a significant increase in the contamination of water courses. Despite the evidence presented in the petition, on 13 January 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the petition on grounds of inadmissibility. The court simply stated without argumentation that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that his rights were personally injured by the alleged violations of constitutional rights and that according to admissibility criteria the plaintiff’s case could not rest on the impact of the rights of the community in general. The fact that as a resident of Asunción Mita the plaintiff was directly affected by contaminated watercourses was not apparently taken into consideration. Legislation to protect constitutional rights (amparo) is supposed to be one of key legal means for citizens to secure remedy for abuses or omissions by state officials breaching legal guarantees. However, admissibility criteria are often interpreted narrowly by courts, meaning individuals or communities without access to resources as well as expert legal advice and support may find it extremely difficult to meet admissibility criteria to protect their rights.",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|State Institutions,Association of Madre Selva|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process|Right to health|Right to life|Right to water 2011– Criminalization of community leaders opposed to Escobal mine,"In 2011, as opposition to the Escobal mine began to develop in local communities, there were peaceful protests against mining-related construction work. This resulted in a series of unsubstantiated charges being levelled against opposition leaders, including members of the newly formed, Committee in Defence of Life and Peace of San Rafael Las Flores, as well as other local community activists. In November 2011, five leaders of the Defence Committee were charged with offences of kidnapping, burglary and terrorism on the basis of a complaint filed by the legal representative of the mining company, Minera San Rafael. The Public Prosecutor’s Office ultimately dropped the case at the request of Minera San Rafael. In September 2012, during peaceful protests in front of the mine, private security guards operating with police andmilitary reportedly broke up the demonstration with violence, arresting at least 32 protesters. They were charged with arson, burglary, and terrorism, by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with Minera San Rafael as joint plaintiff. However, a lower court judge in Cuilapa dismissed the case and they were released. An appeals court ratified this decision, concluding that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had not carried out an adequate investigation. Between 2012 and 2015 other leaders of the Xinka Parliament and the Defence Committee were also subject to various arrest warrants by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, primarily on the basis of allegations by mining company officials or those linked to the company. In 2014, the Defence Committee and Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS) filed a criminal complaint against the Canadian Director of Tahoe Resources for his role in the criminalization of community leaders protesting against the mine. Despite the Public Prosecutor’s Office officially opening an enquiry, and a judge issuing a summons in 2015 for the Director of Tahoe Resources to make a statement in response to the complaint, there is no information available of subsequent steps taken to pursue the investigation (see Rights Action 2015). The leaders of the Defence Committee, the Xinka Parliament and other local community leaders continuing the legal and protest movement against Escobal have faced repeated campaigns of stigmatisation, as well as intimidation and threats (See Legal Action entitled “2019- IACHR issues precautionary measures on behalf of Xinka Parliament lawyer”). No one has been held to account for the attacks on those resisting the Escobal mine.",Community Representatives|Company(ies)|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,"Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Committee in Defence of Life and Peace in San Rafael Las Flores|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Office of Public Prosecutor|Tahoe Resources Inc.|Xinka Parliament","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights 2010– Petition filed to oppose approval of Environmental Impact Assessment,"In December 2010, the Committee in Defence of Life and Peace of San Rafael Las Flores and Colectivo Madreselva presented a petition of opposition to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) to oppose the approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted by Tahoe and Minera San Rafael to obtain an exploitation licence for the Escobal mine. The opposition of the community focused on the failure of the authorities or company to consult with the affected indigenous communities according to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization and the Guatemalan Municipal Law (Decree 12-2002). The document provided evidence that the terms of reference established by MARN regarding consultation with communities fell short of these legal obligations as it referred only in general terms to the “perception, attitudes and concerns of the local population about the project” (Polanco, 2012: 20). The opposition petition also indicated that the EIA had not considered that mining concessions are generally granted over private land by the State, leaving it to the discretion of the concession holding private companies to negotiate with the landowners. However, in cases such as Escobal, where land ownership is contested or uncertain, this created community conflict and would result in forced displacement of families with other grave social impacts (See subsequent Legal Action, entitled “2021 Civil action by local families against Escobal mining licence”). The opposition petition also highlighted a range of other key features of the project which were not addressed in the EIA. These included the lack of information regarding the treatment and disposal of huge quantities of excavated waste rock with potential to leach acids into the environment; the absence of impact assessments in relation to soil as well as surface and subterranean watercourses given the exploitation plan to extract huge quantities of water in the underground tunnels without clear indication of how this would be dealt with; and lack of information on particulate air pollution caused by the mine. MARN did not respond to the opposition evidence submitted to the EIA. In September 2011, MARN approved the EIA Escobal mine. In 2013, after a two year delay, theMinistry of Energy and Minesgranted the exploitation licence (See Legal Action entitled ""2013 Injunction against granting of Escobal exploitation licence”).",Community Representatives|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,Association of Madre Selva|Committee in Defence of Life and Peace in San Rafael Las Flores|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN),"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Administrative Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2019- IACHR issues precautionary measures on behalf of Xinka Parliament lawyer,"In July 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued precautionary measures on behalf of a prominent indigenous lawyer working with the Xinka Parliament. The lawyer had received a series of anonymous death threats, particularly after the public complaint by the Xinka Parliament against the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) for their alleged failure to comply with the 2018 Constitutional Court decision to suspend the Escobal mining licence pending community consultation. According to the information sent to the IACHR by various NGOs, as well as Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsperson’s Office, the threats against the lawyer included a known local gunman supportive of the mining project reportedly threatening to kill him after the June elections. The lawyer was also repeatedly followed by cars and motorbikes as well as being subject to a campaign of defamation. The precautionary measures which were issued on 3 July 2019 required that the Guatemalan State take measures to protect the lawyer to ensure his right to carry out his human rights work without being subject to threats or harassment. In August 2021, a number of Canadian and US NGOs wrote to the IACHR with additional information of attacks against leaders of the peaceful resistance to the Escobal mining project (See Legal Artefact entitled, “2021NGO letter to IACHR requesting extension of precautionary measures No. 487-19”). The organizations urged the IACHR to extend the 2019 precautionary measures to include leaders of the anti-mining movement who had suffered direct attacks and threats in apparent reprisal for their activities demanding the full inclusion of the Xinka Parliament in the consultation process regarding the Escobal mine.At the time of writing (September 2021), there was no further information available on the response of the IACHR or the Guatemalan authorities.",Community Representatives|Indigenous Organizations|Multi-Lateral Organizations|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,Human Rights Ombudsperson (Guatemala)|International Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Xinka Parliament,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Academic Reports,Guatemala,Inter-American System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures,Right to defend rights|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity 2021 Civil action by local families against Escobal mining licence,"On 15 July 2021, the families that co-own the small landholding known as “El Salitre” in the community of Aldea los Planes, in the municipality of San Rafael las Flores, filed three administrative legal actions opposing the Escobal mine exploitation licence. The families were calling for the licence to be rescinded by the Ministry of Energy and Minesas they consider it was granted illegally. The basis of the legal action is that the owners of the land allege that Minera San Rafael, now the subsidiary of Pan American Silver, built part of its processing plant, administrative buildings, and main access road to the mine on their farmland without seeking permission, purchasing, or otherwise obtaining legal title over the land. The owners argue that because of the climate of fear and harassment directed at those who opposed the mine, they did not file a complaint previously because they had been committed to a negotiated settlement to avoid litigation. However, their legitimate demands had only ever been met with “insults and threats” forcing them to pursue legal avenues. The families decided to assert their rights over “El Salitre” by filing a civil lawsuit to reclaim their possession, which the company has illegally sought to deprive them of. At the time of writing (September 2021), the case has been admitted by Guatemala’s civil courts and is being processed.",Community Residents|State Institutions,"Community Residents|Courts|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|Pan American Silver","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Company Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,Civil Lawsuits,Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to private property 2018- Human Rights Ombudspersons of El Salvador and Guatemala coordinate actions on transborder impacts,"In November 2018, El Salvador’s and Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudspersons signed a letter of agreement on joint action on the project, “Strengthening the capacities of the personnel of the human rights institutions of El Salvador and Guatemala in relation to Business and Human Rights”. The project was supported and financed by the Danish Institute of Human Rights. In the press conference to announce the agreement, the Ombudspersons from El Salvador and Guatemala stressed the importance of working together on a range of issues, including those related to the natural environment and water resources of both countries. The Cerro Blanco mine has been the focus of their coordinated actions thus far. Following citizens’ allegations of human rights violations by the company that owns the mining project, theOmbudspersonOfficesof both countries met to discuss a joint course of action in line with their mandates to verify the alleged violations. In May 2019, the twoOmbudspersonOffices[proposed a monitoring visit to the mine facilities. The subsidiary Entre Mares de Guatemala finally accepted the visit, but only by the Guatemalan Ombudsperson, claiming that El Salvador’s Ombudsperson had no competence in Guatemala. As a result, the visit to the mine was cancelled altogether. Other joint meetings and exchanges occurred thereafter, but at the time of writing in 2021 the bilateral process has been halted due to the pandemic.",State Institutions,Human Rights Ombudsperson (Guatemala)|Human Rights Ombudsperson Office (PDDH) of El Salvador,"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",,Journalistic Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,"Gold, Silver",Central America,,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health 1992 Reform of Article 27 of Mexican Constitution,"Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution establishes all land within the country’s borders as originally belonging to the nation, which grants rights of possession in the form of property. The nation maintains the right to impose forms of private ownership on the basis of public interest, and to regulate the exploitation of natural resources for social benefit in order to make equitable distribution of public wealth, care for their preservation, secure the balanced development of the country and the improvement of the life-conditions of the rural and urban population. It goes on to state that the nation has direct control over all subsoil minerals and substances as well as water resources and rivers The Mexican Revolution and article 27 of the 1917 Constitution laid the basis for the redistribution of land and rural development for the following 70 years. Private land ownership was recognised alongside two forms of social or collective agrarian tenure, known as núcleos agrarios. These were the social ‘ejido’ which was established as a land title granted to collectives of peasant farmers on state or expropriated land. The second, agrarian communities (comunidades agrarias), were land titles granted to rural communities, recognising original owner status of land seized from them during and after the colonial period. In theory, the latter primarily enabled indigenous communities to regain collective rights to their traditional lands. Most importantly, ejido and agrarian community lands were not titled to the individual member of the community, but through the legal entity of the Assembly - the collective decision-making body of the community to which the registered members of the Ejido or community belonged. In addition, the collective right to the community lands were imprescriptible and inalienable. In 1992, the Mexican government of president, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, reformed article 27 of the Constitution to break with some of the legal foundations of the developmentalist economic and social model of the post-revolutionary settlement established through the 1917 Constitution. The reforms focused on opening up the economy to international investment and private capital and were part of the Salinas government’s negotiations surrounding the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with the USA and Canada (Gómez de Silva Cano, 2017). The reform ended the revolutionary commitment to land redistribution and set the principles for a new legal framework to regulate rural development, land, resource-use and ownership. Above all, the reform ceased to recognise socially or collectively titled land as inalienable and imprescriptible. Instead, it established a process to grant individual title to plots of land to members of núcleos agrarios, so that individual members could sell, rent or associate themselves with businesses or cooperatives to exploit the land on an individual basis. The reform also established federal competence over agrarian legal disputes. The stated objective of the reform was to develop the agrarian economy through private investment (Gallardo Zúñiga, 2003: 66). However, critics have argued that the reform encouraged the fragmentation of communal lands, disrupting deeply rooted indigenous and peasant cultures. In addition, by strengthening the power of capital and corruption to influence the division, sale and exploitation of land and resources, this increased rural poverty, inequality, division and migration (Carrillo Nieto, 2010).",Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,National Congress|President Salinas de Gortari,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 1992-2001 Constitutional Reforms to recognise Mexico's pluricultural identity and Indigenous rights,"There has been a long struggle for the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico. An important achievement of this movement was the 1991 ratification by the Mexican government of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In 1992, article 4 of the Constitution was reformed to recognise Mexico’s pluricultural identity and to protect the culture and identity of its indigenous peoples. However, as the Due Process of Law Foundation notes, legislation was never passed to give legal effect to this constitutional principle (DPLF, 2018: 19). The 1994 uprising of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in Chiapas resulted in negotiations with the government which, among other issues, focused on strengthening the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights in Mexico. This resulted in the 1996 San Andres Accords. In 2001, this process ultimately resulted in the Congress introducing reforms to the Constitution on indigenous rights. The reform to Article 2 reaffirmed Mexico’s pluricultural identity previously established in the reforms of 1992. However, it went further by recognising indigenous people and their collective rights, including the right of indigenous communities to self-determination within the framework of the constitution and legal recognition of indigenous communities as subjects of public interest as well as of economic, social and cultural rights (González Galván, 2010: 350). This legislative process was unsuccessfully challenged by indigenous communities for falling short of the undertakings in the San Andres Accords, which contained broader rights of autonomy and rights to territory. Nonetheless, the reform increased the recognition of the rights of indigenous communities in Mexico’s legal framework.",Grassroots Movements|Indigenous Organizations|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,National Congress|National Indigenous Council (CNI)|President Salinas de Gortari|Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN),"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2011 Constitutional reforms in relation to human rights treaties,"In 2011, after many years of campaigns for clearer constitutional protection of international human rights norms, reforms to Article 1 of the Constitution were enacted. These recognised the constitutional status of international human rights treaties and required laws relating to human rights to be interpreted in conformity with the constitution and human rights treaties, applying in every case the pro personae principle, that is that principle that provides greatest protection to the person. The reform also required all authorities in their jurisdictions to promote, respect, protect and guarantee human rights in line with the principles of universality, interdependence, indivisibility and progressivity. In subsequent jurisprudence interpreting these constitutional reforms, the National Supreme Court (SCJN) established that the Constitution and international human rights treaties constitute the parameters of control for regulating the constitution, but when there is an explicit restriction of these in the Constitution, the Constitutional text applies (Bailón, 2019: 74). It also recognised the binding obligation on the Mexican authorities to comply with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The 2011 constitutional human rights reforms and subsequent jurisprudence of the SCJN strengthened the rights of indigenous peoples by applying in domestic law protections enshrined in, amongst other human right treaties, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. This increased constitutional protection of Mexico’s treaty obligations, subsequently served in the legal arguments to protect the rights of the indigenous community of San Miguel del Progreso in their case against the Corazón de Tinieblas mining concession.",Civil Society Organizations|International Organizations|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Congress of Mexico|Mexican Human Rights Organizations|National Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico (SCJN),"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 1992 Mexican Agrarian Law,"The 1992 Agrarian Law regulated the constitutional reforms of the same year, creating the agrarian courts and prosecutor to handle land disputes and reforming the Agrarian Land Registry. It maintained the ejido and agrarian community as legal entities alongside extended forms for private involvement in the rural economy. Above all, it established the right of members of ejidos or agrarian communities to obtain individual titles to their plots, albeit under the stewardship of the assembly, to enable the rent, sale and purchase of land. As such, it facilitated the individualised commercial exploitation of previously collectively titled land in the name of economic development. The process was driven forward with government programmes to secure the division and titling of individualised plots. These included the Certification of Ejidal Rights and Titling of Urban Plots (Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares Urbanos, PROCEDE), Support Fund for Agrarian Centres without Title (Fondo de Apoyo a los Núcleos Agrarios sin Regularizar, FANAR) and Program for the Regularization and Registration of Legal Agrarian Acts (Programa de Regularización y Registro de Actos Jurídicos Agrarios, RRAJA). The 1992 Agrarian Law was presented as a necessary mechanism to generate greater legal certainty around land tenure and encourage investment, but above all, “set in motion a whole structure which had the objective of incorporating ejido lands in the market of goods and services” (DPLF, 2018: 27). In addition, Article 93 of the Agrarian Law authorised the expropriation of ejido or communal lands on the grounds of public utility. This included for the purpose of exploitation or conservation of a public service or function; the development or conservation of agricultural, forestry or fishery resources, including the creation or extension of territorial reserves; and the exploitation and processing of oil and other natural minerals belonging to the nation. Article 106 of the Agrarian Law states that the authorities should protect land “corresponding” to indigenous communities according to the law regulating this constitutional guarantee. However, such a law governing these protective obligations was not created. As a result of this legal vacuum, while the ejido or community Assembly have remained the means of collective decision-making regarding indigenous land, a range of state and commercial interests have been unleashed, undermining the collective relationship of indigenous communities to their lands. In 2017, 51.34% of Mexico’s national territory remained under social or collective ownership in the form of ejidos or agrarian communities (Cravioto, 2019: iv).",Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,National Congress|President Salinas de Gortari,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,Gold,Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 1992 Mexican Mining Law,"The 1992 Mining Law and subsequent reforms established the legal framework to facilitate foreign capital investment in the exploration and exploitation of the nation’s mineral resources. Article 6 states that “the exploitation, exploration and benefit of the minerals […] are of public utility” and as such “will have precedence over any other use or exploitation of the land” (Ley Minera, 1992). Article 19, establishes the rights of mining concession holders over the lands within the concession, including to expropriate them, as well as extensive rights to water. In effect, the law “privileges the interests of mining concession holders above any other interest that obstructs the development of this activity” (Cravioto, 2019: iv). Articles 9 and 10 establish the Mexican Geological Service as responsible for surveying all Mexican territory for deposits and submitting potential concessions to the Ministry of Economy to be opened to tender to Mexican nationals. Only particular lots considered of public utility or for future reserves may be excluded from tender. Articles 13 to 14 define as “vacant mining lot” the lots on which concessions are to be granted and set out the tender process. This includes when a concession is cancelled or abandoned, which results in the Ministry of the Economy publishing a “declaration of vacant mining lot” notice for the mining lot in the Official Gazette, reopening the tender process. These articles make no provision for the protection of indigenous lands as established in articles 4 and 27 of the Mexican Constitution. In 2005, an additional reform to the law reduced the obligation on concession holders to obtain separate licences for the exploration and exploitation stages to the requirement to obtain a single permit for both stages. It also extended the length of concessions from 25 to 50 years, with the possibility of extending for another 50 years (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 17). In Guerrero State, between 2005 and 2014, the number of mining concessions granted grew from 417 to 868, from 6% of state territory to 22.6% (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 33). In 2020, there were 673 current mining concessions in the state, covering 883,999 hectares; 221 had been cancelled and a further 98 requested. In the Costa-Montaña region there were 41 concessions, of which 15 were active, 17 had been cancelled and two were being requested ibid: 34). In 2019, there were more than 27,000 mining concessions in Mexico, covering 11% of national territory. In 2020, the government of Andres Manuel López Obrador stated it would not grant new concessions pending a review of the mining sector (Aristegui Noticias, 2019), but also created the Mining Police, an elite federal police force responsible for protecting mining interests of national and international companies (Olivera, 2020). In 2021, the president threatened to cancel concessions with foreign companies alleged not to be paying the required tax on their activities (El Pais, 2021). Existing mining concessions continue to operate.",Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Politicians and/or Political Parties|President Salinas de Gortari|State Institutions,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2011- Indigenous communities reject mining in their territories,"In 2010, Me’phaa and Na Savi indigenous communities in La Montaña and Costa Chica regions of Guerrero began to observe outsiders entering and surveying their lands and to hear of reports of concessions being granted by the authorities to international companies for mining exploration and exploitation on their territories. San Miguel del Progreso, in the municipality of Malinaltepec in La Montaña region, is an indigenous agrarian community of 3,800 inhabitants, whose collective land title was granted in recognition of their existing ancestral title to common lands and possessions of the community. These are known as thebienes comunales or commons of an agrarian community. The 1992 Agrarian Law established the community General Assembly as the legal entity responsible for administering such an agrarian community and its bienes comunales, in accordance with its own internal procedural statutes registered with the National Agrarian Registry (RNA) (See Legal Action entitled 1992 Agrarian Law). The mechanism for officially recording the community decision-making is the statutory minutes taken of the General Assembly which are then registered with the RNA, granting them an important legal status. In 2011, the community decided to use this combination of customary practices as an indigenous community with the provisions of agrarian law to officially record its rejection of mining in its territory. On 17 April, the community held a General Assembly which agreed to reject mining exploration and exploitation in the territory of San Miguel del Progreso. The decision was then registered with the RNA, which officially recognised its registration on 13 September 2012 (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2014). Between 2012 and 2014, 14 other Me’phaa and Na Savi indigenous agrarian communities and ejidos in these regions of Guerrero used the same strategy to resist mining. They held assemblies whose statutory minutes recorded the communities’ rejection of mining concessions in their lands. However, on seeking official registration of the minutes of their assemblies, the RNA refused registration to all but two community decisions (Zapotitlán Tablas and Zitlaltepec). The RNA refused to register the official minutes of the 12 other General Assembly decisions without providing a substantive justification (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 27). In response, in 2015 indigenous communities resisting mining in La Montaña region developed a new strategy to secure official recognition of their position. This involved each General Assembly nominating women and men of the community to work in committee with representatives from CDHM Tlachinollan and the Mexican Network of People Affected by Mining (REMA), and accompanied by the Regional Council of Agrarian Authorities in Defence of the Land (CRAADET), to propose modifications to the internal procedures and statutes of each ejido or agrarian community. The proposed modifications were then presented to and agreed by the community General Assembly in accordance with the Agrarian Law, the rights of indigenous peoples and their community normative systems. The modifications recorded in the statutory minutes focused on legally establishing the community’s own norms and administrative controls over their territory and natural resources. This included the prohibition of mining activity in their territory (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 28). At the time of writing (November 2021), six of the 12 communities which undertook this process have managed to secure official registration of their statutory minutes altering their community statutes with the RNA. In 2019, the community of San Miguel del Progreso translated its statutes into the Me'phaa indigenous language, this included the community’s prohibition on mining activity in its territory and submitted the document for registration with RAR. In 2021, RAR officially registered the statute in Me’phaa thus strengthening the legal recognition of community’s right to language and culture (for information on municipal level assemblies opposing mining, see Legal Action entitle 2016 Municipal assemblies vote against mining).",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Community Residents|Company(ies)|Indigenous Organizations,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Community of San Miguel del Progreso (Júba Wajiín)|Me’phaa and Na Savi indigenous communities in La Montaña and Costa Chica regions of Guerrero|Mexican Network of People Affected by Mining (REMA)|Regional Council of Agrarian Authorities in Defence of the Land (CRAADET),"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,Indigenous Legal Procedures,Right to collective property|Right to natural resources|Right to self-determination|Right to territory "2012-2013 Decree to establish La Montaña Biosphere Reserve, and regional mobilization of indigenous communities against the initiative","In 2012, the Mexican federal government agency, the National Commission for Protected Nature Areas (CONANP) and the Guerrero state Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources initiated the legal process to establish a Biosphere Reserve in La Montaña region of Guerrero. This involved quietly trying to convince some communities in the Alta Montaña region to accept the proposal without providing full information on its implications or conducting a full and open consultation with all indigenous communities affected to ensure their free, prior and informed consent (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2013: 157). The General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection sets out the framework for Protected Natural Areas (áreas naturales protegidas, ANP) which are established through presidential decree. In theory, ANP status provides additional protection to environmentally threatened regions. However, as communities became aware of the proposal, there were increasing concerns that the law, which is focused on federal control of ANPs, would deprive communities of their age-old right to autonomously continue their culture and agricultural practices. In effect, communities believed ANP status threatened to undercut the Agrarian Law which empowered the collective agency of the community assembly in favour of Federal agency management of the park (Ibid: 157-168). Behind this lay the suspicion that the Biosphere Reserve status was primarily intended to permit private companies’ access to the region to exploit resources and potentially limit or displace indigenous community life from their ancestral lands (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 24). As the 13 communities directly affected by the proposed Declaration of a Biosphere Reserve, including San Miguel del Progreso, were also at risk from mining concessions on their territory, the threat posed to the life of the communities by the Reserve became clear. This was also exemplified by the way the authorities attempted to manipulate members of the communities to suggest consent for the Reserve (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2013: 162-163). As a result, the affected communities began to organize and exchange information. In October 2012, the Regional Council of Agrarian Authorities in Defence of Territory against the Biosphere Reserve Project and Mining in La Montaña of Guerrero (CRAADET) was created to lead political action, including protests, to demand the cancelation of the proposed Reserve. On 15 May 2013, the Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources of Guerrero State publicly announced that the proposed declaration to establish the Reserve had been cancelled due to community opposition (Ibid: 166).",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Community Residents|Company(ies)|Indigenous Organizations|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Community of San Miguel del Progreso (Júba Wajiín)|Guerrero state Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources|Me’phaa and Na Savi indigenous communities in La Montaña and Costa Chica regions of Guerrero|Mexican National Commission for Protected Nature Areas (CONANP)|Regional Council of Agrarian Authorities in Defence of the Land (CRAADET),"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,Executive Orders and Actions,"Right to access information|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to natural resources|Right to self-determination|Right to territory" 2013 Community makes freedom of information request,"In March and May 2013, communal authorities of San Miguel del Progreso filed freedom of information requests with the support of the Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña -Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan). The petitions based on the General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information were directed through the System for Information Requests (INFOMEX) at the Ministry of Economy seeking any information on mining concessions granted on community lands. Prior to this, the community had only been able to gather limited informal information in relation to the concessions and the degree to which they impacted the community’s territory. In May and June 2013, in compliance with freedom of information legislation, the Technical Secretary of the Information Committee of the Ministry of Economy responded. The documents stated that San Miguel del Progreso “is partially situated on the mining concessions “Reducción Norte de Corazón de Tinieblas (title 232560) and Corazón de Tinieblas (title 237861)”” (CDMH Tlachinollan, 2014: 62). The concessions had been granted for 50 years to Minera Hochschild México, a subsidiary of Hochschild Mining plc. This was the first official information provided to the community confirming the existence of the concessions and their location on community territory. As a result, the community discovered that the two combined Corazón de Tinieblas concessions covered 80% of their ancestral territory and impacted 12 agrarian centres from 6 municipalities involving almost 240 communities whose lands cover 168,436 hectares (CDHM Tlachinollan, 2021: 48).",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Company(ies)|State Institutions,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Community of San Miguel del Progreso (Júba Wajiín)|Ministry of Economy,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,Administrative Proceedings,Right to access information 2013-2016 San Miguel del Progreso files first challenge to mining concession,"On 15 July 2013, the communal authorities of San Miguel del Progreso filed a federal injunction for constitutional protection or judicial review (amparo). The legal action made two principle claims: the first argued that articles 10, 15 and 19 of the 1992 Mining Law violated Mexico’s Constitution and International human rights treaty obligations, such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention; the second, that the administrative implementation of the law granting mining concessions Reducción Norte de Corazón de Tinieblas (title 232560) and Corazón de Tinieblas (title 237861) without consultation violated the rights of the indigenous community Júba Wajíin of San Miguel del Progreso. In response, the First Federal District Court in Guerrero admitted the petition (casefile 1131/2013) and ordered the temporary suspension of mining exploration and exploitation activities related to the Corazón de Tinieblas concessions pending the outcome of the judicial review. On 6 February 2014, the community of San Miguel del Progreso was informed that the federal court had issued its judgement granting constitutional protection in its favour in relation to the mining concessions on its territory, but had decided not to consider arguments challenging the legality of articles of the Mining Law. The judicial decision included important precedents, such as: - citing in domestic law the obligations deriving from international human rights law in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples, this includes treaty obligations and jurisdictional bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; - recognition of the principle of self-identification of indigenous communities; - acknowledgement of the obligation of courts to guarantee access to justice to indigenous peoples; - citing the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) judicial guidelines on handling cases involving the rights of indigenous peoples; - the legitimate interest in legal terms of the collective members of an agrarian community to file such a legal challenge; - recognition that “possible impact” on the rights of a plaintiff, rather than a confirmed violation, is sufficient grounds to seek constitutional protection; - recognition of the legal principle that the protection of indigenous territory includes natural resources, not just land; - recognition of the obligation to fulfil the right to consultation as established in international human rights law, such as ILO Convention 169; - establishing the minimum elements required to fulfil the right to consultation of indigenous communities (CDHM Tlachinollan 2016: 16-24). The court concluded that the Ministry of Economy had “the unavoidable obligation established as a constitutional and international imperative to uphold the right to a prior hearing by means of a consultation with the indigenous community which would be affected by the concessions (Juzgado Tercero, 2014: 127). In March 2014, the Ministry of Economy filed an appeal (recurso de revisión) against the partial ruling in favour of the community and their right to prior consultation. San Miguel del Progreso also filed an appeal against the judgement’s refusal to consider the constitutionality of the Mining Law. Given the importance of the case for other indigenous communities affected by the law, the community, supported by their legal representatives from the Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña – Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan), lobbied the National Supreme Court (SCJN) to use its powers to take over the review of precedent setting judgements of lower federal courts. They argued that a Supreme Court ruling would set the legal parameters for the country on the issue of the Mining Law. They also observed that the lower court ruling left the terms of compliance to redress the situation in the hands of the Ministry of Economy, leaving ample discretion to the Ministry in relation to the legal situation of the mining concessions. In February 2015, the justices of SCJN unanimously voted to take over the review of the judgement providing an opportunity for Mexico’s highest court to establish standards in relation to indigenous collective rights and the legality of the Mining Law. However, in October 2015, the community was informed by the SCJN that it had received a petition from the Ministry of Economy for the appeal to be dismissed as the mining concession holder, Hosthchild, had withdrawn its title to the concessions earlier in the year. The Ministry of Economy argued that as the two concessions on San Miguel del Progreso territory had been cancelled, there were no longer any alleged constitutional violations, and thus, no grounds to continue the appeal. The community had not been informed by the government or the company of the cancellation of the concession. For an indigenous community to secure the cancellation of a mining concession through a legal action was unprecedented. However, the success was tempered by knowledge that the decision to cancel the concession had been taken to prevent the SCJN analysing the Mining Law in relation to Mexico’s constitutional and human rights treaty obligations. In addition, San Miguel del Progreso and CDHM Tlachinollan were concerned that the legal process of cancelling the concessions had not been undertaken correctly. As a result, the community and CDHM Tlachinollan pressed the SCJN to continue with the appeal review. On 24 November 2015, in accordance with the Mining Law, the Ministry of Economy published in the Official Gazette notice of the cancellation of the concession and the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015”. On 26 May 2016, the SCJN dismissed the appeal review (casefile 393/2015) and closed the case.",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Company(ies)|State Institutions,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Community of San Miguel del Progreso (Júba Wajiín)|Courts|Horchschild Mining Inc|Mexican National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN)|Ministry of Economy,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to access information|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to natural resources|Right to self-determination|Right to territory" 2015-2019 San Miguel del Progreso files petition for constitutional protection against “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot”,"On 11 December 2015, San Miguel del Progreso, supported by the Human Rights Centre of La Montaña - Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan), filed a second petition for constitutional protection (amparo) against the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015” (Declaración de Libertad de Terreno) issued by the Ministry of Economy in the Official Gazette in November 2015(for information on first petition, see Legal Action entitled “2013-2016 San Miguel del Progreso files first challenge to mining concession). The First Instance Federal Court in Chilpancingo admitted the petition (casefile 1402/2015) and ordered the suspension of any activity affecting the collective agrarian rights of the community in relation to the Corazón de Tinieblas and Reducción Norte de Corazón de Tinieblas mining concessions, pending the resolution of the case. This included the suspension of the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015”. The community filed the petition for constitutional protection (amparo) against the authorities on the basis of the impact of the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015” on the community and its publication in the Official Gazette on 24 November 2015. According to the Mining Law, the publication of a “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot” results in the land being open to individuals or companies seeking new mining concessions. As a result, the petition argued that the declaration violated the agrarian and collective rights of the Me’phaa indigenous community as established in the Constitution and international human rights treaties, including the right to the comprehensive protection of their territory and the right to consultation. The federal court judge assigned the case, requested two expert evidential reports from anthropologists on the culture and practices on the community of San Miguel del Progreso and the impact of the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015” on the community. On 28 June 2017, the federal court judge issued her judgement (amparo indirecto 429/2016) finding in favour of San Miguel del Progreso in relation to the violation of their collective rights as an indigenous community, particularly the denial of the right to consultation as established in international human rights treaties. The judge ordered the Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015 to be revoked and without effect, and ordered the Ministry of Economy to respect the rights of the community, especially the right to consultation (CDHM Tlachinollan 2021: 110). Various federal authorities filed an appeal against the ruling (recurso de revisión agrario 560/2017), but on 31 October 2019, a federal collegiate appellate court issued a settled judgement. This modified some aspects of the lower court sentence, but maintained the primary verdict that the “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015” violated the community’s rights as it was not consulted before the declaration was issued and as such created legal uncertainty and affected the communal rights of the indigenous community (CDHM Tlachinollan 2021: 115). On 21 November 2019, the Director General of Mines revoked “Declaration of Vacant Mining Lot 02/2015” and on 21 November 2019 the revocation was published in the Official Gazette.",Civil Society Organizations|Community Representatives|Company(ies)|State Institutions,Centre for Human Rights of La Montaña Tlachinollan (CDHM Tlachinollan)|Community of San Miguel del Progreso (Júba Wajiín)|Courts|Ministry of Economy,"Malinaltepec, Guerrero",,Non-Governmental Reports,Mexico,Mexican System,"Gold, Silver",Mexico,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to access information|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to natural resources|Right to self-determination|Right to territory" 1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2],"In 2013, the Honduran Government, led by President Porfirio Lobo Sosa of the National Party of Honduras (PNH), enacted a new General Mining Law (the “2013 Mining Law”). This law revoked the 1998 Mining Law and lifted a moratorium on new mining concessions. The drafting of the 2013 Mining Law involved input from experts assigned by the Canadian International Development Agency, and a socialization process ordered by President Lobo with representatives of both the mining and civil society sectors. These discussions failed to generate a consensus between different interest groups, environmental groups, and other organisations critical of mining, some of which abandoned the negotiations on the basis that, among other things, the proposed law did not include their principal demand – a prohibition on the use of cyanide and open-pit mining (Middeldorp, 2016). Once passed, the National Coalition of Environmental Networks and Organisationsof Honduran (CONROA) identified the following concerns regarding the 2013 Mining Law, among others: failure to prohibit open-pit mining; failure to adequately protect community water sources; consultation processes that are only engaged after exploration concessions have been granted; failure to include schedule of environmental crimes (as proposed by civil society groups); and denial of access to information about financial and technical aspects of the projects and related companies (MiningWatch Canada, 2013). In 2013 a constitutional challenge to the 2013 Mining Law was filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. In June 2017, the court declared seven of 20 challenged articles to be unconstitutional (see Legal Action entitled “2006-2017 Constitutional Challenges to Honduran Mining Laws” for more detail). In 2019, the Honduran Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling, passing decree 109-2019 which reformed articles 22, 27, 56, 67, 68 and 76 of the 2013 Mining Law. Despite the limitations of the 2013 law, it included some protections, such as excluding mining from nationally protected lands. Article 48 of the law recognises the existence of areas of land for which the Honduran Institute for Geology and Mining (INHGEOMIN) cannot licence mining concessions. These include protected natural areas, declared and registered as protected areas in the Catalogue of Public Patrimony of Inalienable Forestry (Catálogo del Patrimonio Público Forestal Inalienable, CPPFI) and the Registry of Real Estate (Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, RP). However, article 49 stipulates that if the legal procedures for registering protected lands are not complied with, then these areas are not subject to protection. This feature of the law is relevant in the case of ASP1 and ASP2 as INHGEOMIN granted exploitation licences on lands that had been legally recognised as part of a protected national park, but which, like the vast majority of other protected land in Honduras, was not registered by officials in the CPPFI or RP (See Legal Action entitled “2012-2013 Creation and reconfiguration of the Montaña de Botaderos National Park” The failure of authorities to properly register about 98% of nationally protected territory makes the law ineffective at preventing the granting of mining concessions in territory the law is supposed to protect (ACAFREMIN 2020).",Grassroots Movements|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Civic Alliance for Democracy (ACD)|Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH)|National Coalition of Environmental Networks of Honduras (CONROA)|National Congress|National Party of Honduras (PNH)|President Manuel Zelaya|President Porfirio Lobo Sosa,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2006-2017 Constitutional Challenges to Honduran Mining Law [ASP1 and ASP2],"In 2006, a constitutional challenge was brought on behalf of 20 Honduran citizens, including representatives of the Honduran Association of Environmental and Agro-Forest Journalists (AHPAAF) and the Committee for the Defense and Development of the Gulf of Fonseca Plant and Wildlife, against the 1998 Mining Law. In 2006, the Court found that 13 of the legislation’s provisions were unconstitutional, including a provision which allowed companies to expropriate the land of any person who did not reach an agreement with the mining company or opposed mining on his or her property. The 1998 Mining Law was ultimately replaced by the 2013 Mining Law (see Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2]” for more detail). This new law faced a constitutional challenge in 2014 brought by, among others, the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC). In June 2017, the Constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that 7 of the 20 challenged articles of the Mining Law were unconstitutional. These included articles relating to, among other things, public consultation with affected communities, the use of natural resources by transnational corporations, control over vacant lands, and the use of mercury, cyanide, and lead in mining operations (Criterio.hn, 2017). Despite the 2017 Constitutional Court decision, the Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines (INHGEOMIN) has continued to issue mining concessions (La Prensa 2018). According to a March 2018 report released by the CEHPRODEC, there were 302 registered metallic and non-metallic mining concessions, with an additional 193 requests in process at the INHGEOMIN. In November 2019, Congress approved reforms to the invalidated articles of the Mining Law (see Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2]”).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements,Committee for the Defense and Development of the Gulf of Fonseca Plant and Wildlife|Honduran Association of Environmental and Agro-Forest Journalists (AHPAAF)|Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC)|Honduran Institute for Environmental Law (IDAMHO),"Tocoa, Colon",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process 2012-2013 Creation and reconfiguration of Montaña de Botaderos National Park,"On 8 October 2012, the Honduran Congress passed a law (Legislative Decree 127-2012) creating the Montaña de Botaderos National Park to protect local biodiversity and ecosystems and as part of commitments to maintain the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (in 2017, the park was renamed Montaña de Botaderos Carlos Escaleras National Park, after a murdered environmental activist). The 2012 law catalogued the land of the new park, which included the source of 34 rivers, and the measures to preserve species and habitats. Article 4 of the decree established the Core Zones of the park as those areas where no productive activity was to be permitted, including mining, forestry, or dam building, and secondary areas, known as Buffer Zones (Zonas de Amortiguamiento), where some productive activity would be allowed. In February 2013, the new National Park’s Management Plan was published by the National Institute for Conservation, Forestry, Protected Areas and Wildlife (Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre, ICF). This agency is responsible for the regulation, management and development of the park. In April 2013, EMCO Mining Company, (which was later renamed as Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP), and incorporated into EMCO Group of companies), submitted requests to the Directorate for Mining (Dirección de Fomento y Minas, DEFOMIN), the predecessor to the Honduran Institute for Geology and Mining (INHGEOMIN) for two mining concessions, ASP1 and ASP 2, at sites within the Core Zones of the new National Park where mining was not permitted. On 23 December 2013, then President Porfirio Lobo Sosa secured rapid Congressional approval for a new decree to reconfigure the designated Core and Buffer Zones of the National Park (Legislative Decree 252-2013). The reform was presented as increasing the Buffer Zones to better protect the park, but neither the ICF no other parties were consulted on the changes and their impact. In fact, the 2013 reform reduced the Core Zone of the national park to exclude locations such as ASP1 and ASP2. This reclassification of the sites as part of the Buffer Zone rather than within the Core Zone resulted in their no longer enjoying full protection from mining which was as established in the original 2012 decree that had declared the park as a protected area. In 2014, the ICF issued a technical assessment (Dictamen Técnico DAP-031-2014) concluding that the proposed mining project was not feasible as it was located in a forest covered area and in the recuperation subzone of the National Park where mining activity was not permitted (“NO ES FACTIBLE ya que el proyecto está ubicado en un área con cobertura forestal y en la sub zona de recuperación de área protegida Parque Nacional Montaña de Botaderos, donde no se permite la realización de actividades mineras”) (ibid: 402). In addition, ICF technical assessments (dictamen técnico CIPF-047-14, DAP-031-2014, OL-TOCOA-AP-001-2014, ICF-DVS-024-2014) and legal opinion of the Legal Counsel to the General Secretary of the ICF recommended that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MiAmbiente+) reject an environmental permit for the proposed ASP1 and ASP2 mining project (CMDBCP CCI, 2019: 5). Despite this, in 2014 and 2015, INHGEOMIN issued permits to ILP for the mining concessions ASP1 and ASP2.",Company(ies)|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,"Congress of Honduras|EMCO Mining Company, Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP), Institute of Foresty Conservation (ICF)|President Porfirio Lobo Sosa","Tocoa, Colon",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to water 2019 Constitutional challenge to decree modifying Montaña de Botaderos National Park,"On 25 February 2019, members of Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) and the San Alonso Rodríguez Foundation, and accompanied by the Coalition Against Impunity, filed a constitutional challenge or judicial review (recurso de inconstitucionalidad) of Decree 252-2013 which had reduced the dimensions of the Core Zones of Montaña de Botaderos National Park to allow the mining project. The petition sought to evidence the illegality of the reform and its consequences which undermined the original protections of the 2012 decree to establish the national park. On 9 April 2019, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court refused to admit the petition on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not proven that the mining operation in the national park had violated their rights. On 25 April 2019, 264 members of the CMDBCP joined in a new constitutional challenge petition. However, on 4 June 2019 the Supreme Court once again rejected the challenge on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not proven their right to a healthy environment had been violated by the change in the designation of the Core Zone of the National Park and the establishment of the mining operation.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,"Honduran Ministry of Energy|Honduran National Institute of Geology and Mining (INGEOMIN)|La Coalición contra la impunidad Honduras|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Municipal Corporation of Tocoa|Natural Resources, Environment and Mines (MiAmbiente+)|San Alonso Rodríguez Foundation","Tocoa, Colon",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process|Right to water 2007- Municipalities Declare Territories Free of Mining [ASP1 and ASP2],"Between 2013 and 2015, approximately 20 municipalities across Honduras declared themselves “territories free of mining” by holding public referenda or consultative assemblies (cabildos abiertos) in which communities voted on whether to allow mining operations where they lived. These municipalities included, among others, Sabá and Balfate in Colón; Danlí and Teupasenti in El Paraíso; El Negrito, El Progreso and Yorito in Yoro; Dulce Nombre de Culmí, Juticalpa and Olancho in Olancho; Santa Bárbara, San Nicolás, Atima, Colinas, and San Francisco de Ojuera in Santa Bárbara; Chinaclas and San José de la Paz in La Paz; Belén Gualcho in Ocotepeque; and Jesús de Otoro in Intibucá. These types of public referenda date back to before 2013, with Santa Bárbara first holding one in 2007 and again in 2013 (see Upside Down World, 2015). In some instances, the declaration was preceded by large demonstrations. For example, in El Negrito, it took place “after a mobilisation of 10,000 people” (Middeldorp, 2014:111). In legal terms, the declaration of communities as “territories free of mining” is based on community organizations using provisions of Honduran municipal and mining laws to advance local democratic participation in decision-making. For example, Articles 67 and 68 of the 2013 Mining Law require the Honduran Institute for Geology and Mining (INHGEOMIN) to request municipal authorities to carry out a citizens’ consultation before the mining exploitation permits can be granted (See the Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 andASP2]” for more detail). In practice, however, it is not public authorities but local communities that have demanded and even held such consultations in compliance with the law. As such, a vote by local communities rejecting the mine theoretically provides a binding legal means of blocking a project moving to the exploitation stage. However, as anthropologist Nick Middeldorp (2014: 113) observed, these declarations “are more symbolic than legal” as exploration has not been stopped with a declaration, less so exploitation already underway. The 2017 Supreme Court ruling partially invalidated seven articles in the 2013 Mining Law, including articles 67 and 68 related to community consultation. This opened the possibility of strengthening the legal role of municipal consultation processes, including the requirement to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities in accordance with Honduras’ international legal obligations. However, INHGEOMIN, after a brief suspension, continued to issue mining concessions in the absence of a change in the law. At the end of December 2017, there were more than 300 active mining concession in Honduras (See Report entitled “2017 List of Mining Concessions in Honduras”). In November 2019, Congress approved reforms to the invalidated articles of the Mining Law (See Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2]”). Article 67 re-established the obligation on “the Mining authority to request the respective Municipal Council conduct an open citizens’ consultation (cabildo abierto) within 90 days” (la autoridad minera solicitará a la Corporación Municipal respectiva realizar una consulta ciudadana (cabildo abierto), en un plazo no mayor de noventa (90) días) (Decree No 109-2019) regarding the mining project in line with the procedures established in the Law of Municipalities. However, the reformed law once again limited this consultation process to the phase immediately prior to exploitation, after the results of exploration and once environmental impact assessments were available. It also required a community vote rejecting the mine to be repeated every year. In addition, Article 67 has established the obligation to consult officially recognised indigenous communities affected by mining projects. However, the formulation of the article, which refers to a “prior, free and informed consultation”, is potentially ambiguous as prevailing international standards refer to the requirement to obtain free, prior and informed consent to any project affecting indigenous communities “in which consultation and participation are crucial parts of the consent process” (OHCHR, 2013), therefore the new law may risk allowing an official positive characterisation of the consultation process to supplant the primary objective of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities. An important basis for the “Territory free of mining” declarations is the Law of Municipalities (see Legal Action entitled “2016-2020 Petitions for Tocoa Municipal consultative assembly to declare “Territory Free of Mining”). This requires local authorities to hold local plebiscites or referenda on issues of importance. However, there are different grassroots strategies regarding the appropriate voting mechanism for community consultations. The national NGO CEHPRODEC has promoted secret ballots covering all eligible community members. In the case of Tocoa, the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) preferred to pursue a traditional consultative assembly, involving an open show of hands in favour of the declaration of “Territory free of mining”. The CMDBCP considered this approach to voting in a consultative assembly less susceptible to manipulation than a local referendum run by the national electoral authority—an institution which operates under the influence of local political interests and the mining companies as well as being widely discredited for vouchsafing the 2009 coup d’etat and subsequent unfair elections (See Legal Action entitled “2016-2020 Tocoa Municipal consultative assembly to declare “Territory Free of Mining”"").",Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions,Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC),"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,Right to consultation "2016-2020 Tocoa Municipal consultative assembly to declare ""Territory Free of Mining""","According to Article 25 of the Honduran Law of Municipalities, the Municipal Council is empowered “to call a plebiscite of all municipal citizens to take decisions on issues that the Council considers of great importance. The result of the plebiscite is binding and should be made public” (See Legal Action entitled “2007- Municipalities Declare Territories Free of Mining”). The Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) argued that Inversiones Los Pinares wanted an electoral referendum as they would be able to control the vote outcome in their favour through their influence over the National Electoral Commission and the municipal authorities, whereas a traditional consultative assembly (cabildo abierto) would prevent such manipulation and more clearly reflect the will of the community (ACAFREMIN 2020: 26). In April 2016, communities in Sector San Pedro opposed to the mining project in Tocoa, called for a cabildo abierto. This was initially granted by the mayor, but shortly before the Assembly was due to take place, the mayor abruptly cancelled it. A Sector San Pedro assembly was held in its place which reiterated the petition for a municipal level cabildo abierto to discuss the mining issue and approve a declaration of Tocoa as a “Territory Free of Mining”. The municipal authorities repeatedly refused the CMDBCP petition to convene such a consultative assembly. In the face of this refusal and increasing evidence of mud deposits in the River Guapinol caused by project construction work, in June 2018 the CMDBCP and supporters held a protest outsidethe Tocoa Town Hall to demand a cabildo abierto. The mayor refused and informed them that even a declaration of “Territory Free of Mining” would not affect the existing mining project. Since 2018, the CMDBCP have filed criminal complaints against public municipal officials and national institutions for failing to carry out their legal duties to adequately consult the local population (CMDBCP and CCI, 2019). This failure to comply with the law has not had legal consequences either for the authorities or the company exploiting the mining concession. In all, six formal written petitions were made to the mayor to hold a cabildo abierto. This included in January 2019 a mass community meeting and a petition signed by 4,000 local people. Finally, on 29 November 2019, the Municipal Council allowed a cabildo abierto to take place involving the mass participation of community members. This resulted in the assembly voting in favour of the declaration of Tocoa Municipality as a Territory Free of Mining. However, at the time of writing (April 2021), the mayor has so far failed to send the official record of this vote (Acta #079-2019) to the mining authority, the Honduran Institute for Geology and Mining (INHGEOMIN) as required in the 2013 Mining Law. Furthermore, despite the community rejection of the mining project, the Municipal Council had renewed operating permits to the operating company.",Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions,Mayor of Tocoa|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Municipal Corporation of Tocoa,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,Right to consultation|Right to due process 2016 Ceibita community consent for mining project,"On 30 June 2016 EMCO Mining (which changed its name to Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP) in 2017 and became part of the EMCO Group) approached locals of Ceibita to build an access road through their community to the processing plant and mining site. The company promised jobs and investment in Ceibita in return for agreeing to the access road. The official record of the meeting (Acta certificada #083-2016) was subsequently presented by Inversiones ECOTEK (a sister company to ILP and also part of the EMCO Group), which was created to develop the processing plant, as evidence that consultation had taken place in the form of a cabildo abierto (town hall consultative assembly). Other communities affected by the project, particularly Guapinol on the opposite side of River Guapinol that separates the two communities, were not involved in the meeting. Their concerns about the impact of the works on their water supply from the Guapinol and San Pedro rivers were not considered. In February 2018, Inversiones ECOTEK obtained a provisional licence from MiAmbiente+ to construct the iron pellet processing plant. Its petitions for an operating licence included the record of the meetings held with Ceibita representatives in 2016 and 2017 as evidence of the legal requirement to “socialise” information about the mine and consult with the affected communities (REMA, 2020). The Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) has argued that these measures did not amount to effective prior consultation with the communities affected by the project and was evidence of a process manipulated by the company and local authorities to benefit the company and particular community members.",Community Representatives|Company(ies)|Municipal Institutions,EMCO Mining Company|Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP)|Municipal Corporation of Tocoa,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Company Action,Right to consultation 2015 Law to protect Human Rights defenders and journalists,"In May 2015, Decree 134-2015 created the Law to protect human rights defenders, journalists and justice officials. In 2016 the regulatory code of the law was enacted. The 2015 law, modelled on similar experiences in the Latin American region, was passed in response to national and international pressure to address the wide range of threats and attacks on human rights defenders and grassroots media workers. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights played an important role in promoting the initiative. The law recognises the right of all persons individually and collectively to promote and demand human rights and establishes the obligation on the State to respect the rights of human rights defenders and prevent any act or omission threatening those rights. The law also establishes the obligation of the State to promote and respect human rights of all and create the conditions for empowerment and justiciability necessary to exercise those rights. The law created an Early Alert mechanism to identify threats against human rights defenders and the duty of public authorities to protect those under threat. It also established the National System for the protection of human rights defenders as the locus of institutional coordination to ensure the effective protection of human rights in public policy and to identify, coordinate and implement measures to protect human rights defenders at risk. The executive decision-making organ of the System is the General Directorate, which forms part of the Ministry of Human Rights, Justice, Governance and Decentralization, which in 2018 became a separate Ministry of Human Rights. The consultative body of the System is the Council, which the law requires a wide range of institutional actors to participate in. The Council also includes two representatives of civil society. The creation of the System promised to improve the recognition of human rights defenders in Honduras and commit government agencies to their effective protection. However, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders observed in 2019, the effectiveness of the protection measures is often in question and there is an understandable distrust of human rights defenders toward those providing protection: “A significant number of the over 400 rights defenders with whom the Special Rapporteur met expressed a deep distrust of the national protection mechanism and, in particular, the police protection measures mentioned above. Defenders continue to identify the national police, the military police and the armed forces as the main perpetrators of human rights violations and attacks against defenders. It is therefore difficult for them to trust officers from these institutions to protect them by availing themselves of the measures provided for under the national mechanism” (Human Rights Council, 2019: 62).",Civil Society Organizations|International Organizations|State Institutions,Honduran Ministry of Human Rights|Honduran National System to protect human rights defenders|UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,Right to defend rights 2018 Criminal complaints by CMDBCP against local authorities,"On 8 June 2018, during the protest outside Tocoa’s Town Hall, the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the previous and present mayors of Tocoa for failing in their legal duties by unlawfully granting municipal permits to the mine resulting in environmental damage. There is no evidence that this complaint was ever investigated by the authorities (CMDBCP and CCI, 2019: 6).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions|State Institutions,Mayor of Tocoa|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Office of Public Prosecutor,"Tocoa, Colon",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to due process 2018-2019 Criminal complaints by CMDBCP against private company and State authorities,"Since 2018 the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) have filed a series of criminal and administrative complaints against state institutions, such as Honduran National Institute of Geology and Mining (INGEOMIN), the Honduran Ministry of Energy, Natural Resources, Environment and Mines (MiAmbiente+) and Honduran Institute of Foresty Conservation (ICF), as well as the private company, Inversiones Los Pinares, for their role in granting and obtaining mining permits in breach of environmental safeguards or the right to effective participation of the affected communities in the decisions to continue with the ASP1 and ASP2 mining project and processing plant.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,"Honduran Institute of Foresty Conservation (ICF)|Honduran Ministry of Energy, Natural Resources, Environment and Mines (MiAmbiente+)|Honduran National Institute of Geology and Mining (INGEOMIN)|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Office of Public Prosecutor","Tocoa, Colon",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to consultation|Right to due process 2018 Eviction of protest encampment,"On 31 July 2018, after repeated failures of local and national authorities to address their concerns regarding the ASP mining concessions, the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) and supporters established a protest encampment on the access road to the mine. The protest encampment in defence of water and life lasted for 88 days, blocking access to mining vehicles of Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP). During this period, government agencies participated in a joint delegation to Tocoa, engaging in negotiations with the CMDBCP encampment and making various commitments (see Legal Artefact entitled, ""2018 Honduran Human Rights Ministry Memorandum on visit of the interinstitutional group to the municipality of Tocoa""). In September, on the basis of a complaint filed by ILP with the Tocoa Office of the Public Prosecutor, a criminal case was opened against 18 alleged protesters participating in the CMDBCP encampment for the crimes of usurpation, criminal damage and obstruction of a public space. Despite the offences not falling with the special National Court jurisdiction, La Ceiba National Court judge issued an arrest warrant and an eviction order against the encampment (UVA 2020). On 26 October, CMDBCP lawyers filed a legal injunction with the Appeals Court of the National Jurisdiction to halt the eviction order issued by La Ceiba National Court Judge. The injunction petition was rejected. On 27 October 2018, at least 1200 police and army personnel, including specialist militarised police known as TIGRE units, were deployed to evict the peaceful encampment. According to witnesses, the state forces used live rounds and tear gas and protesters were beaten, resulting in several injuries (ACAFREMIN 2020: 27). On the same day, the CMDBCP filed a complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor against police and military for abuses committed during the eviction operation. No investigation resulted from the complaint (CMDBCP and CCI 2019: 9). On 28 October, the CMDBCP and supporters tried to re-establish the encampment but were reportedly fired on by members of Ceibita Permanent Vigilance Committee (COVIPERCE), the local pro-mine group from Ceibita (a Tocoa community), while police watched on. At least three CMDBCP members were injured. In the following days, protesters then blocked the main highway to Tocoa, leading to further confrontations during which a member of COVIPERCE and two members of the military were killed. The circumstances of these deaths have remained unclear but have not featured in the official investigation and charges against CMDBCP activists (See Legal Action entitled “2018- Criminalization and detention of CMDBCP environmental defenders”).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Courts|Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP)|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Office of Public Prosecutor,"Tocoa, Colon",,Academic Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to safety and personal integrity 2018-2022 Criminalisation and detention of CMDBCP environmental rights defenders,"The criminalisation and unwarranted detention of human rights defenders in Honduras has been widely documented by national and international human rights organizations (IACHR, 2019: para. 306; Statement at the end of visit to Honduras by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2019). This includes the manipulation of the justice system to mount unwarranted criminal investigations, obtain baseless arrest warrants and maintain activists in prison for years as part of unfair judicial proceedings, often in pretrial detention. Created in 2017 to combat corruption and organized crime, the National Court system, which is less independent than the ordinary criminal justice system (OEA MACCIH, 2019), is ironically playing an important role in the factional use of the justice system to serve powerful economic interests to target grassroots movements opposing extractive projects. The ASP1 and ASP2 case illustrates how this process of criminalization not only seeks to discredit legitimate social demands, but also exposes human rights defenders to lengthy detention as well as forcing movements to dedicate their energies to challenge convoluted and arbitrary judicial proceedings. The International Human Rights Law Clinic of the University of Virginia Law School documented many of these abuses and irregularities in its report: ""Pretrial Monitoring of the Guapinol and San Pedro Community"" (UVA, 2020). The criminalisation of environmental activists opposing the ASP1 and ASP2 mining project began in October 2018 when a National Court judge in La Ceiba issued a warrant for the arrest of 18 supporters of the Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP). The minor offences of “illegal occupation (usurpation)”, “criminal damage” and “obstructing a public space” were derived from a complaint by Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP) filed with the Tocoa Public Prosecutor’s Office in early September 2018 in relation with the Encampment for Water and Life that the CMDBCP had set up to protest against the mine. The warrant also served to issue the eviction order against this protest encampment (See Legal Action “2018 Eviction of protest encampment”). In February 2019, 13 of the accused CMDBCP environmental defenders voluntarily presented themselves to the National Court in La Ceiba, challenging the evidence against them and the application of the National Court jurisdiction over ordinary criminal offences. However, during the hearing the judge revealed that the Public Prosecutor had sought a second arrest warrant in January 2019 against 31 members of the community (including 12 of those present). This related to a complaint by the ILP regarding an incident on 7 September 2018 nearthe CMDBCP Encampment for Water and Life when a protester had been shot and wounded by an ILP security official and avehicle and company property had allegedly been damaged.The same incident had also led the CMDBCP to file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office but no action had been taken to hold the ILP security guard to account (UVA, 2020: 13). Instead, the judge produced the undisclosed indictment during the hearing to charge the 12 activists with “illegal deprivation of liberty”, “aggravated arson” and “robbery” (privación injusta de la libertad, incendio agravado, robo), and most importantly, ""criminal association"" (asociación ilícita). The latter offence falls within the organized crime jurisdiction of the National Court system, and along with the prosecutor’s unsubstantiated claim that the CMDBCP were a criminal gang, served to justify the judge’s competence over proceedings and the decision to place the 12 accused in pretrial detention. In March 2019, at preliminary hearings, a different National Court judge in Tegucigalpa dismissed both indictments against the 12 detainees. He ruled that prosecutors and the ILP had not provided sufficient evidence of the crimes nor proof of responsibility of the accused, and that the CMDBCP had been engaged in legitimate protest activities. The 12 activists were released from prison.However, the public prosecutor and ILP appealed the judge's decision. In March 2020, the Appeals Court decided to partially reinstate the dismissed indictment against five CMDBCP activists. This included charges of illegal deprivation of liberty and aggravated arson, the provisional suspension of the charge of robbery and dismissal of the charge of criminal association. However, the Appeal’s Court ruling was not communicated to the CMDBCP’s legal defence until late August 2020. In August 2019, seven different CMDBCP activists named in the second arrest warrant presented themselves to judicial authorities seeking a similar acquittal to the decision taken in March 2019. As an illustration of the unreliability of the prosecution evidence, they carried a coffin representing one of the men named in the warrant who had in fact died three years before the alleged offences. However, a new presiding judge admitted uninvestigated claims by an ILP security official as additional evidence and dismissed defence evidence. The latter included arguments that prosecutors had failed to identify specific criminal activity of accused individuals as required by law or to acknowledge official recognition that the CMDBCP was engaged in human right activities (See Legal Artefact entitled “2019 National System for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders official recognition of the CMDBCP as a human rights organization”). The judge committed the men to trial on charges of illegal deprivation of liberty and aggravated arson, but dismissed the charge of criminal association and robbery (UVA 2020: 17). The remaining offences fell outside the National Court jurisdiction, and were not serious enough to merit automatic pretrial detention. However, on 1 September 2019 the judge ordered the seven men into preventive pretrial custody in Olanchito prison, Altantida Department (See also Legal Action entitled: “2018- Legal challenges to criminalization of environmental defenders”). In November 2019, during a hearing to review the preventive detention order, the National Court judge refused entry to international observers. Despite the absence of evidence and the judge’s own dismissal of organized crime offences, the preventive detention order was maintained on the unsubstantiated grounds that the men might become further involved in organised crime (UVA, 2020: 17). An eighth Guapinol defender is also in pretrial detention. He was arrested in November 2018 on the basis of the first arrest warrant against the CMDBCP activists. At the time, he was one of the collective beneficiaries of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) precautionary measures (see Legal Artefact “2014 IACHR precautionary measures on behalf of peasant activists”). These were issued in response to death threats against members of the Unified Campesino Movement of Aguan (MUCA). On 29 November 2018, he was arrested by the police unit responsible for his protection from the Human Rights Defender Protection Mechanism of the Honduran State. In February 2019, he was also indicted on the charges deriving from the second warrant. In March 2021, a judge acquitted him of charges of usurpation and criminal damage from the first warrant, but he remained in pretrial detention on charges of the second warrant. Several legal actions werelaunched by lawyers of the eight Guapinol defenders to challenge their detention and prosecution, butsevenremained in pretrial detention in Olanchito prison in Yoro Department, near Tocoa and the eighth in La Ceiba prison(See Legal Action entitled “2018-2022 Legal challenges to criminalization of environmental defenders). In March 2021, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions (See Legal Artefact entitled, “2021 UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions Opinion 85/2020 on the Guapinol environmental defenders”) concluded the eight men were victims of arbitrary detention and called for their immediate release. In December 2021, Amnesty International declared the men to be prisoners of conscience, calling for their immediate and unconditional release (Amnesty International 2022). In October 2020, in further evidence of the threats facing activists, a human rights defender was shot and killed by gunmen in his home in Tocoa. He was one of 31 individuals named in the first 2018 arrest warrant against protesters opposing the ASP1 and ASP2 licenses (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2020). In February 2022, amidst national and international concern at the unfairness of the criminal prosecution and trial, the Trujillo Court declared six of eight detainees guilty, sentencing them to a total of 110 years in prison. However, in the wake of the election of a new president,defence motions presented to the Supreme Court arguing thatthe prosecution and trial were not legal, resultedin the convictions being struck down. Despite the resistance of local judicial officials to this ruling, the last six Guapinol water defenders in custody were released at the end of February 2022.",Civil Society Organizations|Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions|Office of the Public Prosecutor|State Institutions,Courts|Inversiones Los Pinares (ILP)|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|Office of Public Prosecutor,"Tocoa, Colon",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2018-2022 Legal challenges to criminalization of environmental defenders,"Facing criminalization for protesting against the ASP1 and ASP2 mining project, the Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP), partner organizations and defence lawyers have mobilized to challenge their baseless judicial persecution (See Legal Action entitled “2018-2022 Criminalization and detention of CMDBCP environmental rights defenders”). This involved the voluntary presentations of those accused at court to disprove charges; repeated legal complaints against the Public Prosecutor’s Office for failure to investigate abuses against protesters, abuse of power and failure to carry out legal duties; petitions for the removal of presiding judges for biaseddecisions in relation to charges and pretrial detention orders; habeas corpus against detention and unsafe prison conditions as well as submission of amici curiae by international human rights expert organizations on different aspects of the case to demonstrate violations of international human rights law in the criminal cases and prolonged pretrial detention of the accused activists. Below is a non-exhaustive list of legal actions taken to halt the criminalization of CMDBCP members and secure their release from custody. February 2019 – Voluntary presentation at National Court in La Ceiba of 13 accused to contest first arrest warrant issued in September 2018. February 2019 – Defence filed petition to the court for the removal of presiding judge after alleged irregular handling of second arrest warrant and decision to commit 12 activists to pretrial detention. July 2019 – Defence filed criminal complaints against National Court Judge for abuse of authority and violating the right to protest. Defence also filed criminal complaint against prosecutors for falsifying evidence in the indictment. August 2019 – Seven CMDBCP activists presented themselves to court to challenge arrest warrant. August 2019 – Defence filed petition to the court to halt return of case to previous National Court judge responsible for the initial arrest warrants. September 2019 – Defence filed habeas corpus petition with Appeals Court against pretrial detention. November 2019 – Joint NGO amicus curiae submitted to Constitutional Court to support review of Appeals Court rejection of habeas corpus petition. February 2020 – Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) submitted amicus curiae in judicial hearing to review preventive detention. March 2020 – NGOs such as the Committee of the Relatives of the Detained Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH) filed habeas corpus with the Constitutional Court to end pretrial detention of prisoners at risk such as the CMDBCP defenders. April 2020 – The National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment issued report to the National Court regarding the conditions of detention of the CMDBCP defenders, calling for their pretrial liberty. December 2020 – Defence made case for pretrial liberty at Tocoa court hearing supported by joint amicus curiae from University of Virginia International Human Rights Law Clinic (UVA). January 2021 – Twelve international NGOs, led by the University of Virginia International Human Rights Law Clinic (UVA), submitted amicus curiae to support La Ceiba Appeals Court review of Tocoa court decision to deny pretrial liberty of environmental defenders. March 2021 – Defence lawyers submitted evidence in trial of Jeremías Martínez resulting in his acquittal of charges of criminal damage and ururpation, but he remained in custody facing charges deriving from the second arrest warrant issued against those involved in the Encampment for Water and Life. January/February 2022 – Defence evidence presented to Trujillo court during trial discrediting prosecution case and demonstrating the political motivation of the case. February 2022 – Defence petition for judicial review of case (recurso de amparo) by Supreme Court, resulting in judgements determining the unlawfulness of key aspects of the judicial process against the eight, resulting in their release in late February 2022.","Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State institutions, Non-governmental Organization","Courts, Office of Public Prosecutor,|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)","Tocoa, Colon",,Government Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2019 Request for IACHR precautionary measures on behalf of Guapinol human rights activists,"Lawyers representing the environmental activists of Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) in detention or threatened with arrest requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to issue precautionary measures obliging the Honduran government to protect the Guapinol defenders at risk and respect their right to promote the protection of human rights. At the time of writing (April 2021), the IACHR has not issued precautionary measures. However, the IACHR previously issued precautionary measures on behalf of campesino activists under threat in the Bajo Aguán, where Tocoa is located, in 2014 and extended them in 2016 to additional beneficiaries. These grassroots peasant organizations had been subject to scores of attacks, killings and disappearances as a result of conflicts over land and natural resources since the 1990s (Kerssen 2013; OPDAH 2014). The 2016 precautionary measures identified members of the Unified Campesino Movement of Aguán (MUCA) as at risk. This included a former president of MUCA who received State police protection as a result of the IACHR measures. He was subsequently arrested in connection with the Guapinol case and at the date of writing (November2021) remains imprisoned (See the Legal action entitled “2018- Criminalisation and detention of CMDBCP environmental rights defenders”).","Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State institutions, Multi-lateral Organizations",Inter American Commission on Human Rights|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP),"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Inter-American System,Iron oxide,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures,Right to defend rights|Right to safety and personal integrity 2020 Human Rights Ombudsperson issues public letter criticising criminal case against Guapinol defenders,"Issued on 22 September 2020, the Honduran Human Rights Ombudsperson’s public letter directed at the judicial authorities made the case for the detained members of the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) as human rights activists engaged in legitimate protest activities. The letter also pointed to the failure of the judiciary to guarantee the right to presumption of innocence and called for the case to be handled by the ordinary courts not in the National Court jurisdiction, which is supposed to be limited to serious cases of organized crime. However, while the ombudsperson has the authority to monitor the case and issue recommendations in order for the Honduran State to uphold human rights law, the letter does not carry specific evidential legal weight within the judicial process against the unfairly accused environmental defenders.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Honduran Human Rights Ombudsperson|Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP),"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2019 IACHR issues report on the Situation of Human Rights in Honduras,"IIn October 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a country report on Honduras. The report was based on a field visit to Honduras in 2018 to gather evidence on the human rights situation. The report documents a wide range of human rights violations and failures of public institutions to comply with international human rights standards. The IACHR raised a number of serious concerns in relation to the human rights impact of mining projects, lack of adequate consultation processes with affected communities and attacks against and criminalization of human rights defenders. In concrete, the IACHR raised concerns about the ASP and ASP2 mining project and the criminalization and threats against human rights defenders opposing the project: “The Commission received information on the aggravation of the conflict related to the implementation of the mining project managed by the mining company Inversiones Los Pinares in the sector known as El Guapinol, in the municipality of Tocoa. Throughout 2018, leaders and members of local communities affected by the project expressed their rejection of the project, as well as requested the revision of the concession and consultations with the population. In addition, a camp was reported to have been set up in October 2018 to block access to the mining concession, which would have intensified harassment and criminalization of community leaders and civil society organizations. As a result of this situation, members of the Municipal Committee for the Defense of Common Goods of Tocoa were forcibly displaced.” (IACHR, 2019: para. 306) The IACHR also noted the increasing misuse of the criminal justice system against social activists – particularly relevant in the case of the criminalized members of the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP) environmental defenders (See Legal Action entitle ""2018- Criminalisation and detention of CMDBCP environmental rights defenders""): “The information gathered during the visit indicates that the judges and prosecutors of national jurisdiction have broadened their attributions to include “high impact” matters that would exceed the cases contemplated under the Law, having heard, for instance, matters related to the post-electoral crisis and, more recently, in March 2018, usurpation matters. The Commission is particularly concerned by the inclusion of the crime of usurpation in this jurisdiction because adjudicating this crime in these courts could lead to prosecutions of land and territory defenders for these crimes, and also stigmatize the work of defenders by commencing judicial proceedings against them in a jurisdiction originally intended for high-impact crimes committed by organized crime groups.” (IACHR, 2019: Para. 92). The IACHR concluded the report with a series of recommendations to the Honduran government, including to avoid using judicial investigations to submit human rights defenders to unfair and unfounded criminal trails (IACHR, 2019: Recommendation 18) and “To initiate a culturally appropriate procedure to give effect to the right to free, prior and informed consultation and consent, which incorporates the provisions of Convention 169 and international standards in the matter” (IACHR, 2019: Recommendation 25).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|International Organizations|State Institutions,Inter American Commission on Human Rights|State Institutions,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Inter-American System,Iron oxide,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to safety and personal integrity 2019 National Protection System recognises the CMDBCP as a human rights organization,"In August 2019, the National System for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders officially recognised in written correspondence DGSP234-2019 that the CMDBCP is an organization engaged in activities of the legtimate defence of human rights. As such, a key branch of the state human rights aparatus recognised the CMDBCP as human rights actors, enabling the CMDBCP lawyers to submit the document as supporting evidence in the criminalization case to demonstrate the legitimate human rights activities for which the Guapinol environmental defenders are being prosecuted (CMDBCP and CCI, 2019: 19). Neither the Public Prosecutor nor the judge have taken this evidence into account at the time of writing (November 2021).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,CMDBCP|Honduran Human Rights Ombudsperson,"Tocoa, Colon",,Company Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Iron oxide,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to defend rights 2019 Visit of the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises,"In 2019 the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises visited Honduras to assess the State’s compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Working Group made a number of criticisms regarding the regulation of corporate activity and human rights impacts, particularly around adequate procedures for Environmental Impact Assessments, licencing, transparency, accountability and misuse of the criminal justice system. The experts also called for the respect for the activities of human rights defenders and for regulation on consultation processes to ensure the effective participation of communities affected by mining projects (WG-business 2020).","Civil Society Organizations, State Institutions, International Organizations",Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|State Institutions|UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (Also known as Working Group on Business and Human Rights),"Tocoa, Colon",,Academic Reports,Honduras,United Nations System,Iron oxide,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures,Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2021 UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued opinion on detained CMDBCP environmental defenders,"In March 2021, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued Opinion 85/2020 declaring the eight Guapinol environmental defenders to be arbitrarily detained according to international human rights law which Honduras is legally bound to adhere to. The Working Group called on the Government of Honduras to remedy the situation by immediately releasing the eight men from custody and indemnifying them for the violation of their rights.",Multi-Lateral Organizations,Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods (CMDBCP)|State Institutions|UN Working Group on Arbitary Detentions,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,United Nations System,Iron oxide,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to defend rights|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2021 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report to the Human Rights Council on Honduras,"On Feburary 2021 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provided a country report to the High Commissioner included in the annual report to the Human Rights Council. The report raised a series of human rights concerns, including the misuse of the judicial system in the Guapinol case in order to unfairly prosecute and detain human rights defenders.",Multi-Lateral Organizations,UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,"Tocoa, Colon",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,United Nations System,Iron oxide,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2020- Guatemalan Government and the Xinka Parliament initiate pre-consultation over Escobal,"In February 2020, the Xinka Parliament and the GuatemalanMinistry of Energy and Mines restarted dialogue on the conditions necessary to fufill the Constitutional Court ruling on the requirement to conduct a consultation process with the Xinka peopleaffected by the Escobal mine (see Legal Action entitled, ""2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences""). In October, after a meeting between the Xinka and government representatives a joint statement was issued agreeing the steps to be carried out as part of a pre-consultation process (Earthworks, 2020). The agreements reached to facilitate the pre-consultation processwere as follows: ""The process will be carried out within the framework of the Xinka people’s worldview, institutions and decision-making systems. The pre-consultation and consultation processes will be carried out without pressure or conditions imposed by any of the parties. The meetings will take place at the Xinka Parliament’s office in Cuilapa, Department of Santa Rosa. The Ministry of Energy and Mines has accepted and accredited the 59 representatives appointed by the Xinka people as their interlocutors and representatives in the pre-consultation and consultation process. The Ministry of Energy and Mines will facilitate the payment of external consultants required and appointed by the Xinka Parliament of Guatemala during the pre-consultation and consultation. The Ministry of Energy and Mines will inform the representatives of Pan American Silver Guatemala, owner of the Escobal mine, that the Xinka Parliament of Guatemala considers the company’s activities in the region to be acts of bad faith that violate the “free” nature of the consultation. The first activity within the pre-consultation process will be the Assessment of the Cultural and Spiritual Impacts of the Escobal mining project on the Xinka people."" (Parlamento del Pueblo Xinka de Guatemala, 2020) ​However, this process once again stalled until May 2021, when the first pre-consultation meeting was held in offices of the Xinka Parliament. Besides 59 accredited Xinka authorities, those participating included representatives of the Ministries of Culture and Sport, Energy and Mines, Environment and Natural Resources, the Presidential Commission for Dialogue, the University of San Carlos of Guatemala, members of Community Development Councils and the Municipal Council of San Rafael Las Flores. Also present were representatives of the Human Rights Ombudsperson’s Office and of Pan American Silver.The purpose of the meeting ""was to identify the entities that will participate as observers and to establish the first set of agreements about how the pre-consultation and consultation process will be carried out” (Parlamento del Pueblo Xinka de Guatemala,2021). In June 2021, a second meeting was held which resulted in further preliminary agreements (MEM, 2021). These included that Xinka Parlament would be responsible for a Study on the Cultural and Spiritual Impact of the Escobal Mining Project carried out by an independent expert, Claudia Dary. The methodology and team charged with preparing the report was agreed. In addition, the Xinka Parliament would provide counter recommendations on MEM’s proposal for the consultation process and would present a proposal for the participation of advisors at the next meeting (Prensa Libre, 2021). Despite advances in the pre-consultation process, representatives of the Xinka Parliament also remained concerned about the eventual role that their traditional customs and authorities would be allowed to play in the implementation of the consultation.",Community Representatives|Indigenous Organizations,Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Xinka Parliament,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures|Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2019 Salvadoran NGOs submit report to UN Universal Periodic Review,"In March 2019, the Central American Network for the Defence of Transborder Waters – El Salvador (Red Centroamericana por la Defensa de las Aguas Transfronterizas- El Salvador, RedCAT) and Franciscans International (FI)submitted a joint report asCivil Society Organizationinput to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. In October 2019, RedCAT and FI presented the report to themembers of permanent country missions at the UN in Geneva and lobbied them during the UPR pre-sessions to encourage representatives of member states of the Human Rights Council to ask specific human rights questions to the Salvadoran government during the UPR examination and to include particular recommendations in the Working Group’s final report.In December 2019, the UPR conducted its third examination of El Salvador’s compliance with international human rights obligations and recommendations. The joint NGO report highlighted the particular vulnerability of El Salvador’s water resources, the lack of adequate legal mechanisms in El Salvador to protect citizens’ right to water or to implement the 2017 metallic mining ban. The report also highlighted the threat posed to El Salvador’s principalwater supply, the Lempa River, by mining operations in Honduras and Guatemala, particularly the Cerro Blanco mine. RedCAT and Franciscans International recommended new legislative and administrative measures to improve the quality, protection and management of water resources in El Salvador and the participation of local communities in decision-making. In particular, they urged cooperation with neighbouring countries, especially progress on establishing a Treaty on Crossborder Waters with Guatemala and Honduras. In March 2020, the Human Rights Council adopted the final report of the UPR Working Group which included a range of recommendations made to El Salvador as part of the State peer review process. This included the following recommendations: “Recognize the right to water and sanitation in legislation, and adopt effective measures to improve the quality and quantity of water, particularly in border areas”;and“Take the necessary legal and policy actions in order to ensure the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and to combat the pollution of water resources, including in the context of mining” (United Nations Human Rights Council 2020).",Civil Society Organizations|Multi-Lateral Organizations|State Institutions,Central American Network for Transboundary Waters Treaty (RedCat)|Franciscans International|Salvadoran Government,,,Policy and Think Tank Reports,El Salvador|Guatemala,United Nations System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures|Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to consultation|Right to health|Right to water 2002 Criminal complaint filed for contamination to Malake River,"In 2002, Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS)filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor for crimes against health in relation to contamination of theMalake River. However, the complaint did not result in charges or legal action against those responsible.",Community Representatives,Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"Cedros (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2000 Community organizations challenge legality of environmental permit,"In June 2010, theSiria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) and other civil society organizations filed an administrative challenge tothe legalityof the Honduran Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA) granting an environmental permit for exploitation of the San Martín concession. The legal challenge was unsuccessful (CIDSE, 2009:69).",Civil Society Organizations,Honduran Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA)|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"Cedros (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Academic Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings, 2014- Citizen Transborder Treaty Drafting [Cerro Blanco],"For Salvadoran NGOs involved in the Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica (National Roundtable against Metallic Mining), the regulation of transborder water resources in Central America has been an issue for many years. Their concerns emerged out of the discovery that both Guatemala and Honduras have received requests for exploration and exploitation of minerals located in borderzones neighbouring El Salvador. The main instance of this is the Cerro Blanco mine, located in Guatemala (Municipality of Asunción Mita, Jutiapa Department), in the crossborder Trifinio biosphere reserve (See Enactment of Treaty for the Execution of Trifinio Plan). The reserve straddles the borders of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, near the source of the Lempa River in Guatemala, which is El Salvador’s principle water supply. As a result, contamination of the watercourses in the reserve which eventually feed the Lempa river pose a direct threat to a large portion of El Salvador's water supplies. TheTreaty for the Execution of Trifinio Plan, signed in October 1997,established the reserve and a trinational commission to promote development and protect biodiversity, but failed to focus on the effective management of transnational watercourses to protect access to water in the three countries. National governments committed to the extractive industry model of economic development, such as Guatemala and Honduras, have resisted institutional initiatives to strengthen regional regulation of shared water resources. There is increasing awareness in civil society that transborder issues, such as the environment, cannot be managed fairly and effectively solely through the traditional principle of national sovereignty (Montoya, 2021). For this reason, civil society and church organizations in El Salvador, many of whom participated in citizen law-drafting and advocacy struggle to secure theban on metallic mining in El Salvador (See 2017El Salvador passes Legislative Ban on Metallic Mining), have worked with the Human Rights Ombudsperson for the Environment to promote a new regional transborder treaty to regulate the protection of shared waters (Oxfam Australia, 2014). The Centre for Research in Investment and Trade (CEICOM) in alliance with other Salvadoran organizations facilitated a citizen treaty drafting process from 2014. In 2015 the “Proposed Treaty for the integrated sustainable management of crossborder waters, focused on shared watersheds between the countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador” was presented publicly, and circulated widely. It draws inspiration from international instruments, such as the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and international human rights treaties, and is intended to be taken on and discussed by governments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (see Montoya, 2021). It is viewed by CEICOM and other organizations as a complement to the legislative ban on metallic mining in El Salvador and is supported by organizations in Guatemala and Honduras that are members of the Central American Network for Transboundary Waters Defense (RedCat).The draft treaty has been discussed extensively with Salvadoran public officers from the Foreign Office and other institutions, some of whom have made amendments to CEICOM/RedCat’s initial draft. However, Salvadoran institutions have not taken any steps to discuss it with their counterparts in Guatemala and Honduras as requested by RedCat.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements,Central American Network for Transboundary Waters Treaty (RedCat)|Centre for Research in Investment and Trade (CEICOM) (El Salvador)|Human Rights Ombudsperson,"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",,Government Reports,El Salvador|Guatemala,Central America,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures|Popular Law Drafting and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to water 1997 Enactment of Treaty for the Execution of the Trifinio Plan,"In 1987, a long-mooted agreement between El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala was developed to establish the transnational Biosphere Reserve in the cloud forest covering the Montecristo massif which lies on the border of the three countries. The region is home to rare flora and fauna as well as serving as the catchment zone for three of Central America’s principal watercourses, including the River Lempa. The initial agreement established the Transnational Commission for the Plan Trifinio to promote development in the region as well as protect the forest and biodiversity. Trifinio is the Spanish geographical term for aplace where three borders converge.In November 1987, the three countries issued the “Declaration of the International Biosphere Reserve of Fraternity (Trifinio)” (Declaración de la Reserva Internacional de la Biósfera de la Fraternidad) and in 1998 the Plan Trifinio for Regional Trinational Frontier Development (Plan de Desarrollo Regional Fronterizo Trinacional Trifinio) was published. This established the framework for the development of the region, which received support from, amongst others, the OAS, UNDP, UNESCO and EU. In October 1997, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras developed this process further, signing theTreaty for the Execution of the Trifinio Plan. This created a regional body that forms part of the Central American Integration System (SICA). The terms of the treaty seek to develop an environmental and territory management process that allows for the best possible quality of life for border communities, including the trinational Commission that acts as a guardian for the development of the reserve.The focus of the Plan and the Commission has been to promote a wide range of development projects while preserving the biodiversity, particularly focusing on soil and forest conservation rather than watercourses. As a consequence of these priorities, the Trifinio Plan and Commission have a range of limitations, including failure to prioritize the development of effective transnational mechanisms to regulate and manage shared regional water resources originating in the Reserve (Artiga, 2014). This is a particularly acute concern for El Salvador, whose principal watercourses, such as the River Lempa and Lake Güija, depend on catchment zones in the Reserve. Despite the limitations of the Treaty for the Execution of the Trifinio Plan, civil society groups and Salvadoran government representatives have invoked its provisions to advocate the suspension of Cerro Blanco mining project. For example, former Salvadoran President, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, noted that while the Treaty does not prohibit mining, it requires that any decision affecting the reserve must be agreed upon by all three countries (stopesmining.org, 2014). Nevertheless, the government of Guatemala has so far failed to recognise this trinational legal obligation under the treaty with respect to the impact of the Cerro Blanco mine. For more information on citizen-led efforts to draft crossborder treaties addressing water resources, see2014- Citizen Transborder Treaty Drafting [Cerro Blanco].",Multi-Lateral Organizations,Guatemalan Government|Honduran Government|Salvadoran Government,,,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador|Guatemala|Honduras,Central America,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Treaties and Procedures, 1996-2017 Salvadoran General Mining Laws and Amendments,"The current legislative framework for mining operations in El Salvador, including those owned by transnational corporations, began with the enactment of the Mining Law in 1996, four years after the end of a 12-year civil war (OCMALet al., n.d.). In 2001, this law was amended to, among other things, reduce the level of royalty rates required to be paid by mining companies from 4% to 2% of profits from mineral exploitation, with 1% allocated to the municipality in which the operation takes place and 1% allocated to state (Alterinfos América Latina, 2006). Following the enactment of the Mining Law, several pieces of legislation were passed setting out environmental standards for various development projects, including mining operations. These laws included the Environmental Law passed in 1998 and amended in 2007, and the Law on Regional Planning and Territorial Development, passed in 2011 (OCMAL et al.). In 2004, El Salvador entered into the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), which governs foreign trade and investment relations between the United States and El Salvador as well as other Central American countries and the Dominican Republic (SICE-OAS) (See the Legal Action entitled, “2006-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador"", for information relating to an arbitration commenced under DR-CAFTA against El Salvador in relation to the authorization of mining concessions). The Mining Law classified mineral deposits as metallic and non-metallic, and granted the state the authority to issue exploration and exploitation licences or concessions to entities seeking to extract these minerals. This law works in conjunction with the Environmental Law, which sets out criteria for the regulation and management of land use and, in formulating development plans, requires the central government and municipalities to follow guidelines issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN). These guidelines must also be followed where these authorities grant permits for the establishment of industries and commercial activities (among other things) that involve risks to health, human well-being, and the environment (OCMAL, et al.). Moreover, the Environmental Law regulates procedures for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and requires public consultation prior to the approval of EIAs (Ibid). For more information regarding the regulatory framework for the approval of mining concessions, please refer to ""Legislación Minera en el Derecho Comparado: Los casos de Chile, Ecuador, Perú, Guatemala, and El Salvador"" referenced below (Spanish only). In the context of the El Dorado mining project the ""public feedback and community consultation processes"" provided for under the Mining Law and its regulations was criticized for only giving communities ""ten days to respond to [a] single copy of a complex and confusing 1,400 page [EIA] report"" (Spalding, 2014). Moreover, between September 2005 and February 2008, representatives of the ARENA government and Pacific Rim El Salvador, a wholly-owned Salvadoran subsidiary of Pacific Rim Mining Corporation, met to discuss amendments to the Mining Law. The proposed amendments related to legislative requirements for the consent ofsurface landprior to a companybeing granted approval for subsurface mining. This requirement impeded the company's ability to proceed to the exploitation phase of the El Dorado project. The company's position was that it was not consistent with ownership practices enshrined in the Salvadoran legal system. The proposed amendments were submitted to a joint Environmental and Economic Commission of the Legislative Assembly in November 2007. A new commission was established in January 2008 to review the draft amendments, receive submissions from stakeholders, and provide recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. Ultimately, the proposed amendments, including the specific language proposed by the company, were rejected by the Legislative Assembly (ICSID Award, paras. 6.53-6.124. See also IISD, 2017 and Broad, 2015) In 2009, the company started an international investment arbitration proceeding against El Salvador for damages arising from alleged delays in the authorization of exploitation licences and, what the company characterized as, an unlawful de facto moratorium on mining. The arbitration was dismissed in 2016, with the company ordered to pay El Salvador's legal costs ofUS$8 million (See the Legal Action entitled, “2006-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador"", for more information). In 2017, the Legislative Assembly passed a law prohibiting metallic mining in El Salvador. This law revoked all provisions in the Mining Law relating to metallic mining (el país, 2017). See the Legal Action entitled, “2017 El Salvador passes Legislative Ban on Metallic Mining” for more information.",State Institutions,Legislative Assembly of El Salvador,"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2006 De facto Moratorium on Mining imposed by successive Salvadoran governments,"In 2006, the Salvadoran government, led by the traditionally business-friendly party, Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) imposed a ""de facto"" moratorium on all mineral-related concessions in El Salvador (Montoya, 2024). While not expressed in any formal document or policy, the moratorium was implicit in the fact that the government never granted Pacific Rim Mining Corporation an exploitation concession or, for that matter, any further exploration concessions to other companies. The de facto moratorium was confirmed by President Elías Antonio Saca (ARENA) in 2008 (IISD, 2017; Broad, 2015). Notably, this public confirmation was made in the run-up to the 2009 presidential election, which was won by the traditionally left-wing political party, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). FMLN also endorsed the de facto moratorium during the electoral campaign (Montoya, 2021). In response to not receiving exploitation concessions for the El Dorado project, Pacific Rim started an international investment arbitration in 2009 against El Salvador for alleged damages of US$314 milion (IISD, 2017; Montoya, 2024) (See Legal Action entitled, ""2006-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador"" for more information). In 2012, the FMLN drafted its own legislation proposal [the second] based on a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the mining sector that the government had commissioned from the Spanish firm TAU Consultores (Montoya, 2024). This firm’s assessment underlined the risks of mining in El Salvador under the current legal, institutional, environmental and social conditions and indicated that a ban on mining seemed a prudent step, at least until these conditions were reversed. The FMLN’s proposal, entitled the Special Law for the Suspension of Mining-Related Administrative Procedures, was intended to consolidate the moratorium on mining concessions indefinitely (Ibid.). However, the proposal was never discussed by the Legislative Assembly and met with strong opposition from the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional), which felt that it left open the possibility of mining in the future under a government less concerned about the impacts of extraction. This 2012 proposed law was a step back from a legislative proposal to ban metallic mining outright, which had been prepared in 2010 by the Mesa Nacional in collaboration with FMLN allies (Spalding, 2014). At the time, the leader of the FMLN party and President of El Salvador committed to signing the legislative ban if it was approved in the Legislative Assembly (Ibid.; See also the Legal Action entitled ""2006-2017 Mesa Nacional Drafts and Proposes initial Legislative Bans on Metallic Mining"" for more information on the popular law drafting initiatives). Before 2013, further efforts at legislative reform were again made by the National Conciliation Party (PCN), a conservative and pro-business party (Nadelman, 2015). Its proposed reforms were aimed at restoring mining in El Salvador. Both the PCN's and FMLN's legislative reform attempts were met with opposition from the other parties and from opponents of mining who were adamant in their pursuit of a mining ban (Montoya, 2021, 2024).",Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN)|National Republic Alliance (ARENA)|Public Health and Environment Commission of the Legislative Assembly,"San Isidro, Cabañas",,,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Executive Orders and Actions,Right to a healthy environment 2009-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador,"In April 2009, Pacific Rim Mining Corporation (""Pacific Rim Corp.""), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pac Rim Cayman LLC (""PRC"", together referred to as ""Pacific Rim""), commenced an Arbitration action under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention seeking damages of more than US$314 million from El Salvador for unlawfully terminating its rights and investments relating to the El Dorado mining project. In particular, Pacific Rim's claim was based on El Salvador's failure to accept its application to convert its already-existing exploration concessions to exploitation concessions, which would allow it to begin extracting gold from identified deposits (IISD, 2017). ICSID was created approximately 50 years ago ""to deal with government expropriation of property of foreign investors"" (Broad, 2015). It was not widely used until the mid-1990s, with the proliferation of bi-lateral and multi-lateral investment treaties, such as the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), and the inclusion of international investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions that allowed investors from a member state (including multi-national corporations) to sue countries for discriminatory or unfair treatment, and to seek compensation for property expropriation (Ibid). The disputes are settled through arbitration proceedings, which are generally decided by a three-person panel of arbitrators selected by the parties. In this case, the proceeding was divided into two main stages: the jurisdiction stage and the merits stage. At the jurisdiction stage, the panel examined whether it had the authority to consider and decide upon the dispute between Pacific Rim and El Salvador. Pacific Rim argued that the panel had jurisdiction under both DR-CAFTA and El Salvador's Investment Law (IISD, 2017). As a Canadian company, Pacific Rim Corp. could not rely on the ISDS provisions in DR-CAFTA because Canada is not a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the arbitration was brought by PRC, whose corporate nationality was changed from the Cayman Islands to the United States in 2007. As a United States company, PRC could arguably rely on ISDS provisions under DR-CAFTA to resolve its dispute, as the United States is a party to the treaty. With respect to the Salvadoran Investment Law, Pacific Rim argued that it contained express consent to resolve disputes via arbitral proceedings governed by ICSID (ICSID Jurisdiction Decision, 2012; See also Broad, 2015). In 2012, the tribunal dismissed Pacific Rim's arguments regarding DR-CAFTA, but assumed jurisdiction under the Salvadoran Investment Law. In so doing, the tribunal rejected El Salvador's arguments that ""the Investment Law specifically subjects subsoil-related investments to the Constitution and secondary laws, and the Mining Law refers disputes involving mining exploration licences to the exclusive jurisdiction of Salvadoran courts"" (IISD, 2017). The tribunal held that ""El Salvador's interpretation was not binding"" and also rejected its argument that the action was time barred under the Salvadoran Civil Code (Ibid). The decision to accept jurisdiction over this dispute is viewed by some commentators as evidence of pro-corporate bias in the ICSID process. For example, Robin Broad argues that ""the details of the submission should have led the tribunal to throw out the case since [Pacific Rim] claimed that it did not know about the potential problems with getting the concession until March 2008, but that claim was disproved by indisputable evidence, including emails from [Pacific Rim] top officials dating as early as 2005"" (Broad, 2015). In other words, the action should have been dismissed as out of time (time barred) under Salvadoran law. The tribunal found, however, that ""investment tribunals do not necessarily need to apply domestic statutes of limitations"" (IISD, 2017). Once jurisdiction was accepted, the proceeding moved to the ""merits"" stage - i.e. a determination of the substantive claims at issue - which was determined by the same three-person panel as the jurisdiction stage (Broad, 2015). Pacific Rim argued that ""the denial of the El Dorado [exploitation] concession resulted from El Salvador's alleged de facto ban on metallic mining, in breach of the country's obligations under Salvadoran and international law"" (IISD, 2017). In effect, Pacific Rim's position was that, ""in granting it an exploration licence, the government of El Salvador was essentially giving it the green light on the exploitation licence"" (Broad, 2015). El Salvador argued that, ""[Pacific Rim] was not entitled to an exploitation concession, and that the state did not breach any obligations"" (IISD, 2017). Overall, Pacific Rim had failed to meet the requirements under El Salvador's Mining Law and, rather than seek to resolve its dispute about the interpretation of those requirements through domestic judicial proceedings, it sought to have El Salvador's Mining Law amended in its favour and, when that failed, proceeded to international arbitration (See, for example, El Salvador’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits, para. 173). The tribunal also accepted submissions from non-disputing parties, including the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) (a Washington D.C.-based NGO), the United States, and Costa Rica. CIEL acted as amicus counsel for members of the National Roundtable against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional) and submitted two briefs, one on the issue of jurisdiction and one on the merits (Montoya, 2024). On the issue of jurisdiction, CIEL argued that Pacific Rim's ""claim [did] not present any 'legal dispute' or cognizable 'measure' sufficient to confer jurisdiction under [the ICSID Convention and DR-CAFTA], but rather appear[ed] to reflect [Pacific Rim's] dissatisfaction with the general direction that Salvadoran public policy has taken in recent years"", referring to ongoing social movements and national debate over metallic mining and human and environmental rights (Amicus Brief, 2011). On the merits, CIEL's submissions focused on El Salvador's obligations under international human rights and environmental law, arguing that the measures taken to place the granting of new mining licences on hold while it reviewed public concerns over the industry was in line with said obligations (IISD, 2017 and Amicus Brief, 2014). The submissions of the United States and Costa Rica focused on the interpretation of the ISDS provisions under DR-CAFTA. They did not take a position on the merits of either of the disputing parties' positions (Costa Rica Submissions, 2011 and U.S. Submissions, 2011). The tribunal considered these submissions, along with CIEL's jurisdiction submissions, at the jurisdiction stage. At the merits stage, ""[t]he tribunal considered it unnecessary to address CIEL's case, because the disputing parties did not consent to disclose the factual evidence to CIEL, and because the tribunal's decisions 'do not require the Tribunal specifically to consider the legal case advanced by CIEL: and, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to do so'"" (IISD, 2017). Ultimately, in deciding the case, ""the tribunal focused on two aspects: the legal interpretation of the Mining Law Article 37(2)(b) [the requirement that applicants for exploitation concessions submit proof of property title or authorization from surface land owners] and the claim of estoppel or actos propios"" (IISD, 2017). In 2016, it released its final award (decision), dismissing all of Pacific Rim's claims against El Salvador and ordering it to pay El Salvador US$8 million in legal costs (ICSID Award, 2016; See also IISD, 2017 for a brief summary of the tribunal's decision on the above two aspects of Pacific Rim's claim). The tribunal's final award, along with written submissions, transcripts, and expert reports, are available on the ""italaw"" website, a free online database on investment treaties, international investment law and investor-state arbitration (see https://www.italaw.com/cases/783).",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL)|National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional)|Pac Rim Cayman LLC|Pacific Rim Mining Corporation|Republic of Costa Rica|Republic of El Salvador|United States of America,"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS),Gold|Silver,Central America,Investment Arbitration,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process|Right to health|Right to self-determination|Right to water 2010 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing on the Situation of Environmentalists in Mesoamerica,"In October 2010, the International Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held a hearing, entitled the ""Situation of Environmentalists in Mesoamerica"", as part of its 140th Regular Period of Sessions. From El Salvador, the participants included the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional) and the Commitee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). The purpose of this session was to discuss the challenges faced by human rights and environmental defenders in their work. A video and audio recording of the hearing is available in the hearing citation. In June 2011, the IACHR issued a press release condemning the murder of a human rights defender in El Salvador. The victim, Juan Francisco Durán Ayala, was an activist with the Cabañas Environmental Committee for the Defense of Water and Natural Resources (CAC), which defends the environment from the impact of mining activities of El Dorado"" (IACHR, 2011). In its press release, the Commission referenced information received during the above hearing regarding similar murders that occured in 2009. It urged El Salvador ""to immediately and urgently adopt all necessary measures to guarantee the right to life, integrity, and security of environmentalists in the country"" (Ibid).",Grassroots Movements|Multi-Lateral Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations,Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)|International Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)|National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional),"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Inter-American System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,Right to defend rights|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity 2006- Popular Law Drafting and Legislative Activities on the Right to Water,"In El Salvador, the right to water and legislative initiatives protecting that right are closely linked to the socio-environmental and political struggle around metallic mining. For instance, in 2006 (the same year that a popular draft law to ban metallic mining was first proposed), a General Water Law was drafted by a group of about 100 social, religious and academic organisations who were part of umbrella platform called Water Forum (The Council of Canadians, 2011). The draft stalled in the Legislative Assembly for approximately 5 years, until 2011 when it was announced that it was expected to be debated by the end of year. The proposed law provided, among other things, “that access to water is a human right, and that all persons without distinction are entitled to have access to it in sufficient quantities” (Ibid). It also proposed the creation of a regulatory body called the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) and “place[d] a two-year limit on permits for industrial and commercial water use, with the possibility of renewal”(Ibid), along with a water use tax. In April 2012, the Legislative Assembly approved the proposed law, along with a constitutional reform that recognizes the human right to water, as set out in the proposal (The Council of Canadians, 2012). The reform, however, required ratification through a second vote. In October 2014, it was blocked by right-wing members of the Legislative Assembly (The Council of Canadians, 2014). The issue of legislating the right to water and preventing the privatization of water resources continues to be debated in El Salvador. In April 2018, the Commission on the Environment and Climate Change of the Legislative Assembly reached agreements on 92 articles of the General Water Law. One of main criticisms of grassroots groups and NGOs in relation to legislation discussed in mid-2018 at the Legislative Assembly was that it aimed to facilitate private actors’ involvement in a governing body that would decide on matters related to water administration (La Prensa Gráfica, 2018). In the following three years there were continued discussions and promises by legislators to enact progressive legislation on water (GatoEncerrado, 2021). In June 2021, the Government Nayib Bukele, which had gained control of the legislature earlier that year, presented a draft Water Bill to the legislative assembly. The organizations belonging to the Water Forum were highly critical of the draft bill which they argued normalised water injustice and had been drawn up without an adequate consultation process (El faro, 2018; EFE verde, 2021). In October 2021, legislative commissions continued to consider the proposed bill. With respect to the mining debate in El Salvador, movements opposing mining operations often frame their position as “pro-water” rather than “anti-mining”, particularly given widespread concern about the contamination risks posed by mining to the country’s scarce water resources (Broad and Cavanagh, 2015). For further information on sustainable water management in El Salvador, please refer to the report referenced below, “Hacia la Gestión Sustentable del Agua en El Salvador”, prepared by the Salvadoran Ecologic Unit et al. (Spanish only).",Civil Society Organizations|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Commission on the Environment and Climate Change of the Legislative Assembly|Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN)|Legislative Assembly of El Salvador|Water Forum (Umbrella Organization),"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Law Drafting and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health|Right to water 2006-2017 The Mesa Nacional drafts and proposes Legislative Bans on Metallic Mining,"The National Roundtable against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional) has been the driving force behind popular law-drafting efforts around the issue of metallic mining and its relation to human and environmental rights. The Mesa Nacional is an umbrella organization that began in 2005 in an effort to bring together social, environmental, and religious organizations from around the country to develop and advance strategic policies to eradicate metallic mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional, ""Misión""). In or about 2006, The Mesa Nacional began considering legislative bans as a possible avenue for achieving this goal, in part, to consolidate the de facto moratorium already in place. In 2006, the Mesa Nacional drafted and submitted its first proposed legislation on prohibiting ""metal mining in all its forms and regulation of non-metal mining"" (Montoya, 2021). The law was entitled ""Law for the Regulation of Mining Activity in the Country"". It contained 72 provisions and, while delivered to deputies, was never discussed in the Legislative Assembly. In 2013, the Mesa Nacional prepared a revised version of its draft legislation, focusing on five sections that sought a strict ban on metallic mining (Montoya, 2024). The new proposed law was entitled, ""Special Law for Banning Metallic Mining in El Salvador"". By according the law ""special legal status"", the Mesa Nacional aimed to ""ensure it would supersede any law with which it might clash"" (Montoya, 2021). This proposed law was presented while the country was embroiled in a multimillion dollar international investment arbitration started in 2009 by Pacific Rim Mining Corporation against El Salvador for alleged damages arising from a failure to grant the company an exploitation mining licence in relation to the El Dorado mining project (See the Legal Action entitled, ""2006-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador"", for more information). In 2015, believing a negative ruling in the international investment arbitration dispute, the Mesa Nacional members reconsidered their strategy (Montoya, 2024). They requested that the FMLN government pass an executive decree that would remain in effect until a different combination of political parties in the Legislative Assembly demonstrated a willingness to consider a ban. On 30 August 2016, the Mesa Nacional met with the President of El Salvador, the Minister of the Environment, and the Legal Secretary to the President to present a proposed Executive Order to suspend metallic mining. The Mesa Nacional argued that the proposed Executive Order was necessary because the existing mining law contravened Article 103 of the Constitution, which protects private property rights. The President, Salvador Sánchez Cerén (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, FMLN), confirmed his government's commitment to not allow mining in El Salvador (ES No Minería, 2016). However, despite this commitment, the executive order was never passed. The Mesa Nacional continued with its efforts to pass a full legislative ban on metallic mining. In October 2016, the investment arbitration tribunal released its decision, dismissing the company's claims against El Salvador, leading to renewed political pressure on the Salvadoran government to pass the legislative ban on mining (Montoya, 2023, 2024). Importantly, the Mesa Nacional's legislative efforts received support from religious organizations, including the influential Catholic Church (Nadelman, 2015; Montoya, 2021). For example, in 2007, El Salvador's Bishop Conference (CEDES) made public statements against mining and, in 2011, repeated this condemnation, demanding an outright ban. The decisive factor, however, appears to have been the active public involvement of the San Salvador Archbishop, who in February 2017 along with other senior religious officials and organizations, visited the Legislative Assembly with a legislation proposal to ban metal mining exploration and exploitation - small-scale as well as industrial - permanently (Nadelman, 2015; Montoya, 2021). This proposal was prepared with the help of law professors from the José Simeón Cañas Central American University (UCA) and built upon the law-drafting efforts of the Mesa Nacional (Montoya, 2021). This version was ultimately approved by the Legislative Assembly in March 2017 (See the Legal Action entitled ""2017 El Salvador passes Legislative Ban on Metallic Mining"", for more information; See also Montoya, 2024).",Grassroots Movements,National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional),"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Law Drafting and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health|Right to water "2014-2017 Five municipalities declare themselves ""Mining-Free Territories"" through popular consultation procedures","Articles 115 and 116 of El Salvador's Municipal Code require municipal governments to promote citizen participation through various mechanisms, including popular consultations (consulta popular). According to art. 117, a popular consultation must be held where ""40% of eligible voters request in writing"" that one be called (See also Stopesmining.org, 2014). Moreover, the municipal council cannot take action against the majority opinion expressed in a popular consultation if at least 40% of eligible voters participate in the consultation (Article 117). The results of a popular consultation are, therefore, considered to be binding (de carácter vinculante) on, at minimum, municipal authorities (UCA, 2010). The Association for the Development of El Salvador (CRIPDES), a grassroots organizations formed in 1984, and the National Roundtable against Metallic Mining in El Salvador, an umbrella organization that began in 2005 in an effort to bring together social, environmental, and religious organizations from around the country to develop and advance strategic policies to eradicate metallic mining in El Salvador, are two key organizations that provide logistical, legal training, and support to communities interested in proceeding with popular consultations in relation to mining activities within their territories. The process for organizing and promoting the consultations is, however, led by community members themselves, typically through a Management Team that is made up of local residents selected by local Associations for Community Development (ADESCOS). The communities rely on existing procedures and mechanisms in place for municipal and national elections in order to carry out the consultation. The ballot question asks whether voters want or do not want exploration-exploitation mining projects in their municipalities. If the Municipal Code requirements are met, the community will generally request an official Municipal Ordinance to formalize the results. The ordinance acts as an organizing tool or means by which to pressure politicians at the national level to comply with community decisions, as reflected in local participatory processes. However, legally, the ordinances are secondary to mining legislation and could not prevent mining activities that were lawfully authorized under the Mining Law. CRIPDES assisted with drafting and publishing the ordinances in the Official Journal, along with designing communication campaigns and providing any training or logistical support needed throughout the process. This information is based on an interview conducted with a representative of CRIPDES as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project. Similar information was provided by the mayor of San Jose Las Flores in an interview conducted for this project. The first popular consultation on metallic mining was held in the municipality of San Jose Las Flores in the Department of Chalatenango in September 2014. Voter turnout was 67%, with 99% voting to ban mining in their territory and declaring itself a “mining-free territory” (Stopesmining.org, Sept 2014). A second was held in November 2014 in the municipality of San Isidro Labrador in the Department of Chalatenango. Voter turnout was more than 60% with 98.74% voting in favour of banning metallic mining in its territories (Stopesmining.org, Dec 2014). In March 2015, the municipality of Nueva Trinidad became the third municipality to declare itself a “mining-free territory” following the results of a popular consultation. The voter turnout in this case was 61.85%, with 99.25% voting no to mining in their territories. As with other popular consultations, preparations for the vote began months in advance; ""organizers from the municipality and civil society organizations mobilized an educational campaign, using general assemblies, banners, and house visits to educate the population on the popular consultation and the effects of mining"" (Upside Down World, 2015). The process was also monitored by 24 international observers from the U.S., Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua to give it international legitimacy. National observers from the Office of the Ombudsperson for the Defence of Human Rights (PDDH) and the mayors of San Jose Las Flores and Arcatao also provided """"logistical and legal support"" for the consultation process (Ibid). In November 2015, the municipality of Arcatao in the Department of Chalatenango became the fourth municipality to vote in favour of becoming a ""mining-free territory"" through a popular consultation process. Voter turnout was 60%, with 99% voting against mining. In 2017, similar results were obtained by a fifth municipality, Cinquera, in the Department of Cabañas  (where the El Dorado mine is located), with 98% of eligible voters in favour of becoming a “mining-free territory”. This was the first vote of its kind in Cabañas (IPS, 2017). Prior to the passage of the national legislative ban on metallic mining, popular consultations served as a tool to express rejection of mining activity at a local level (Gatoencerrado, 2014).",Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,Association for the Development of El Salvador (CRIPDES)|Association of Communities for the Development of Chalatenango (CCR)|Associations for Community Development (ADESCOS)|Human Rights Ombudsperson Office (PDDH) of El Salvador|National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional)|Regional and Interntional Election Observers,"San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,Right to consultation|Right to self-determination 2017 El Salvador passes Legislative Ban on Metallic Mining,"On 29 March 2017, the Legislative Assembly approved a law prohibiting metallic mining in El Salvador. The law enjoyed cross-party support, passing with 69 out of 84 votes, well over the qualifying majority  (Reuters, 2017; Montoya, 2021).The law prohibits all exploration, extraction and processing of metals, whether in open pits or underground, and officially entered into force on 2 June 2017. In relation to existing mining legislation, the 2017 ban law revokes all provisions in the Mining Law relating to metallic mining (El Pais, 2017). The passage of this legislation was a historical event. El Salvador was the first country to ""categorically"" and ""unconditionally"" prohibit metallic mining in its territory (Dougherty, 2017). The process leading up to this stage began with the first draft proposal for a legislative metallic mining ban authored by the National Roundtable against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional), an umbrella organization that began around 2005 in an effort to bring together social, environmental, and religious organizations from around the country, and submitted to the Legislation Assembly by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) in 2006. A second iteration of this draft proposal was submitted in 2013 (Montoya, 2023; Montoya, 2024). However, in the interim, the debate on a legislative metallic mining ban had stalled as politicians focused on resolving a multi-million dollar investment arbitration started by Pacific Rim Mining Corporation in 2009 (Dougherty, 2017). During this period, mining in El Salvador remained in a state of limbo as governments and politicians from across the political spectrum extended a de facto moratorium put in place in 2006. (See the Legal Actions entitled “2006-2016 Pacific Rim International Investment Arbitration against El Salvador”, “2006-2017 The Mesa Nacional Drafts and Proposes initial Legislative Bans on Metallic Mining”, and “2006 De facto Moratorium on Mining imposed by Successive Salvadoran Governments”, for more information). On 6 February 2017, representatives of the influential Catholic Church, including the Archbishop of San Salvador, along with the Vice-Chancellor of the Jesuit ""José Simeón Cañas"" Central American University (UCA), appeared before the Legislative Assembly in support of a legislative ban on mining. This appearance, particularly by the Archbishop, was considered a turning point in the national debate (Montoya, 2021). During this session, the Archbishop and President of the UCA presented a new bill, which built upon Mesa Nacional's previous drafts and was developed by the UCA. This version, with some amendments, ultimately would become law on 29 March 2017. On 9 March 2017, the President of the Legislative Assembly, Guillermo Gallegos, announced that the law prohibiting metallic mining in El Salvador could be approved before Easter. This announcement was well received by the Catholic Church and civil society groups which had marched to the Assembly the same day to present the signatures of 30,500 citizens who were against metallic mining (El Mundo, 2017). Nonetheless, efforts to ensure the law passed continued. On 28 March 2017, Governor of Nueva Vizcaya in the Philippines, Carlos Padilla, delivered a presentation to El Salvador's Environment and Climate Change Committee regarding his province's adverse experience with an OceanaGold mining project (i.e. the corporate owner of the El Dorado mine in Cabañas). The mine had recently been ""suspended after complaints of water contamination, forcible and illegal demolitions of homes, harassment of residents and violations of indigenous cultural rights."" Mr. Vizcaya's presentation was organized by the UCA (NOW Magazine, 2017). The next day, the Law on the Prohibition of Metallic Mining was passed by the Legislative Assembly.",Academic Institutions|Foreign Politicians|Grassroots Movements|Religious Organizations and Institutions|State Institutions,"Catholic Church|Environment and Climate Change Commission of Legislative Assembly|Governor Carlos Padilla, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines|José  Simeón Cañas Central American  University  (UCA)|National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional)","San Isidro, Cabañas",,Non-Governmental Reports,El Salvador,Salvadoran System,Gold|Silver,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health|Right to water 1997-2017 Nicaraguan Mining and related Laws,"In 2001, a new law regulating mining was approved by the National Assambly, the Special Law on Mining Exploration and Exploitation (No. 387) and regulations thereunder (Decree No. 119-2001). In subsequent years, further laws have been passed regulating discharge waste water (Regulation establishing Rules for the Discharge of Waste Water - Decree No. 21-2017), and on procedures relating to mining concessions (Format for Mining Concessions - Ministerial Agreement 533-RN-MC-2006). These laws have also been supplemented by the requirements under the General Water Law (No. 620), the Law on the Environment and Natural Resources (No. 217), and the Special Law on Crimes against the Environmental and Natural Resources (No. 559) (Pérez 2016, ECOLEX Database). Environmental impact assessments and permits are governed by Decree No. 20-2017, Environmental Evaluation System of Permits and Authorizations on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (repealed Decree Nos. 76-2006 and 15-2017) (FAOLEX Database). In 1997, at the time that the Special Law on Mining Exploration and Exploitation (No. 387) was proceeding through the legislative approval process, the Humboldt Centre released a statement expressing opposition to the draft law for the following reasons, among others: (1) insufficient consultation, particularly with potential new mining districts, and highly technical language that was difficult to understand and did not take into account cultural and linguistic differences in the few sectors that were consulted; (2) the participation of the small scale mining industry was treated as a tangential matter, ignoring the importance of this sector; (3) the contradictory and incongruent nature of some of the environmental aspects of the law; (4) conflict with the Municipal Code to the extent that it vitiates municipal and indigenous autonomy; and (5) the law gave primacy to the mining industry over other economic industries, such as agricultural and cattle-raising (Humboldt Centre, 1997). These concerns were also expressed and supported by other environmental organizations, such as ADUN - Matagalpa, the Movement for Peace, Forestry Action, and the Environment (MOPAFMA), the College of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua (COBEN), the Nicaraguan Foundation for Conservation and Development (FUNCOD), and the Environmentalist Youth Club (CJA), along with organizations representative of the mining sector, such as Movement of Women Workers and Unemployed of El Limón, León, the Association of Small Scale Artisanal Miners of Bonanza, North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RAAN), and the Oscar Lino Paz Cubas Organization Pro-Communal Development (OPRODECO) (Ibid). In addition, in 2017, the Nicaraguan government passed a new law, entitled the Law on the Creation of Nicaraguan Mining Companies (ENIMINAS) (No. 953), through which the government reserved more than 12% of the national territory for mining operations. The Institute of Strategic Research and Public Policy (IEEPP) and the Humboldt Centre raised concern as to whether the state, through state-owned companies, should be involved itself in the mining industry. According to an investigator with the IEEPP, these areas would now be available for exploration and exploitation by private capital without paying taxes at any level (IEEPP, 2017). ",Grassroots Movements|Labour Organizations|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,"ADUN - Matagalpa|Association of Small Scale Artisanal Miners of Bonanza, North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RAAN)|College of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua (COBEN)|Environmentalist Youth Club (CJA)|Humboldt Centre|Institute of Strategic Research and Public Policy (IEEPP)|Movement for Peace, Forestry Action, and the Environment (MOPAFMA)|Movement of Women Workers and Unemployed of El Limón, León|Nicaraguan Foundation for Conservation and Development (FUNCOD)|Nicaraguan Government|Oscar Lino Paz Cubas Organization Pro-Communal Development (OPRODECO)","La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Non-Governmental Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2015- Citizen Development of Mining Legislation Draft,"According to an interview conducted with a representative of the Humboldt Centre as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project, in 2015 the Centre began to develop a new proposed mining law that aimed at establishing an effective mechanism for regulating, controlling, and monitoring mining operations, including the taxation and royalty rules, the process for granting concessions, and technical issues relating to small and large-scale mining operations. The draft was prepared in consultation with small-scale and artisanal mining collectives, along with other affected community members. It took into consideration that, while some communities in Nicaragua reject mining outright, others have a history of small-scale mining and depend on these activities for residents' economic livelihoods. The Centre's position is that if mining is going to be developed in Nicaragua, it should only be in the traditional mining districts, applying appropriate and effective mechanisms of monitoring, regulation, control, and respect for the environment. It believes that mining should not expand beyond these areas, and particularly not to protected areas or fragile natural areas, such as the San Juan River watershed.",Non-Profit Organization,Artisanal Miners Collectives|Community Residents|Humboldt Centre,"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Popular Law Drafting and Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process 2010 Administrative Complaint filed by the Units of Environmental Management (UGA) from six municipalities,"In October 2010, Units of Environmental Management (UGA) from six municipalities, including Santo Domingo and La Libertad, filed an administrative complaint with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) and the Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR) on the basis that the exploration activities conducted by B2Gold through its wholly owned subsidiary, Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), showed environmental deterioration, particularly with respect to surface water sources, such as springs, ravines and rivers, resulting in significant breaches of the companies' environmental permit and national environmental legislation. The environmental permit, and associated authorization to begin exploration activities, was granted by the General Directorate of Environmental Quality (DGCA) of the MARENA in 2008. Despite this complaint, two amendments were subsequently made to the environmental permit allowing for the expansion of exploration activities and, in 2012, exploitation of the authorized mining area.",Municipal Institutions|State Institutions,Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA)|Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR)|Units of Environmental Management (UGA),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Non-Governmental Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment 2012 Administrative complaint filed by Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD),"In 2012, the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD), with the assistance of the Humboldt Centre, filed an administrative complaint with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), the Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR), and the Municipality, challenging the granting of exploitation mining licences to Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), a wholly owned subsidiary of B2Gold, for its La Libertad Mine, in particular for the area of Jabalí Central. The complainants challenged the absence of an Environmental Impact Study before the granting of this licence, and filed detailed information regarding environmental damage to water sources connected to the mining project (Centro Humboldt 2017; Interview with Centro Humboldt 2017). The exploitation licences for La Libertad Mine were granted by the General Directorate of Environmental Quality (DGCA) of the MARENA in September 2012 for an area referred to as ""Jabalí Central"", without completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment or community consultations. In 2014, the Municipality of Santo Domingo approved a land-use permit to develop the ""Tajo La Antena"" project (also known as, Jabalí Antena Underground project), which also forms part of the La Libertad Mine project and is located in the town centre of Santo Domingo, near the Jabalí neighbourhood (Confidencial, 2015). In its March 2018 Annual Information Form (AIF), B2Gold acknowledged that its La Libertad Mine project includes ""a risk of conflict with the small scale miners which could materially adversely affect [its] operations"", adding that ""[f]urther development of [its] mining activities may require the relocation and physical resettlement of artisanal miners and development plans may be impacted as a result. Any delays as a result of potential relocation or resettlement could negatively impact [B2Gold] and may result in additional expenses or prevent further development"" (B2Gold 2018). In 2013, the Humboldt Centre began to test Santo Domingo surface water sources, which supply both rural and urban communities (See Political Action entitled, ""2013-2017 Humboldt Centre tests water in Santo Domingo to research industrial mining"". The 2013 results confirmed that the water was potable. However, information gathered in 2014 from farms located in the areas surrounding the mine indicated that irreparable damage had occured to community water sources, attributed to the construction of the mine and exploitation activities (Onda Local, 2017). Small-scale artisanal miners and community members have raised specific concern about contamination of the Túnel Azul, the municipality's main water source (Ibid).",Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions|Non-Profit Organization|State Institutions,General Directorate of Environmental Quality (DGCA)|Humboldt Centre|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA)|Municipality of Santo Domingo|Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR)|Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process 2012 Administrative Complaint by Artisanal Miners against B2Gold,"According to an interview conducted with a representative of the Humboldt Centre as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project, in October 2012, two groups of small-scale artisanal miners, El Cafetal (The Coffee Plantation) and Sector La Cuatro (Sector Four), filed a complaint with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), with a copy to the Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR) and the National Police, demanding compliance with Article 43 of the Special Law on Mining Exploration and Exploitation (No. 387), which allows artisanal miners to operate on 1% of all mining concessions granted to industrial, large-scale mining companies. The municipality of Santo Domingo has a history of small-scale artisanal mining. It is the second most important economic sector, next to agriculture. As such, a significant portion of its population rely on mining for their economic livelihoods and are not strictly opposed to it in general. However, there is community opposition to large-scale industrial mining based on concerns regarding environmental damage and destruction, a lack of transparency and access to information from the municipality and the company (B2Gold), and the rapid depletion of mineral sources relied on by artisanal miners (Humboldt Centre, ""Estudio de Caso"").  A meeting was held between Humboldt Centre and the municipality regarding this complaint (Interview with Humboldt Centre, 2017). However, neither the artisanal miner groups nor the Humboldt Centre received a substantive response from MARENA or the Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR) to their 2012 complaint.",Labour Organizations|Municipal Institutions|Non-Profit Organization|State Institutions,El Cafetal (The Coffee Plantation)|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA)|Municipality of Santo Domingo|National Policy|Office of the State Prosecutor (PGR)|Sector La Cuatro (Sector Four),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to due process|Right to self-determination 2013 Citizens Complaint regarding B2Gold/DESMINIC violation of Legal and Environmental Regulations,"In 2013, a citizen complaint was filed with the Environmental Ombudsperson, Office of the Public Prosecutor, and the Ministry of the Environment describing three years of violations of legal and environmental regulations by Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), a wholly owned subsidiary of B2Gold, and the conduct of the authorities charged with the company's regulation and control. As of 2016, no response had been received from the complaint.",Community Residents|Company(ies)|State Institutions,B2Gold|Community Residents|Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.)|Environmental Ombudsperson|Ministry of the Environment|Office of the Public Prosecutor,"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Company Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process 2015 Administrative Complaint filed by Affected Community Residents against B2Gold,"In 2015, residents of Santo Domingo and Managua filed a complaint with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) of Juigalpa (the capital city of the Department of Chontales) against Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), a wholly owned subsidiary of B2Gold. The complaint accused the company of, among other things, a failure to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements under the General Law on the Environment and Natural Resources (No. 217), damage to natural resources, non-compliance with environmental permits, failure to comply with required remediation, revegetation and reforestation measures in exploitation areas, and improper handling of timber extracted from exploitation areas in relation to La Libertad Mine. The complainants requested, among other things, that the MARENA order a technical and legal environmental inspection of identified areas, interview affected community members, redress and compensation for environmental damages, and the imposition of a fine and closure of the mining project (Denuncia Ciudadana).",Community Residents|Company(ies)|State Institutions,B2Gold|Community Residents of Santo Domingo and Managua|Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.)|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Non-Governmental Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to due process 2017 IACHR Hearing on Access to Public Information relating to Extractive Projects,"On 18 March 2017, the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD) (in partnership with the Humboldt Centre) and Law, Environment and Natural Resources (DAR), among others, appeared before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to provide testimony for a hearing, entitled the ""Right of Access to Information and Transparency in Environmental Management, Licensing, Monitoring, and Oversight of Extractive Activities in the Americas."" A representative of Save Danto Domingo Environmental Movement testified that in Nicaragua ""one of the mechanisms used to defend the rights of rural communities is access to public information"" (DAR, 2017). As an example, the representative referenced the ""Tajo La Antena"" project (located near the Jabalí neighbourhood in Santo Domingo's city centre; also known as, Jabalí Antena Underground project). This project is part of the larger La Libertad Mine project, and impacts water sources of the Santo Domingo municipality. The ""process of granting and approval of the environmental impact study (EIA)"" for this portion of the project  ""was not consulted or shared with the community"" (Ibid). Moreover, according to the Humboldt Centre, ""in the last 8 or 10 years [as of the date of the hearing], [the Centre had] not had access to public information despite having repeatedly requested it from the relevant authorities” (Ibid). In Nicaragua, the right to access to public information is governed by, among other things, the Law on Access to Public Information (No. 621), which emphasizes the principles of transparency and citizen participation through requests for information necessary to present proposals or formulate opinions on the public administration of the country  (Article 3), as well as the Law on Transparancy for State Entities and Companies (No. 662) and the Law on Citizen Participation (No. 475). DAR emphasized that violations of the right to access to public information occurs in ""two moments"":  the ""socio-environmental decision making prior to the granting of the concession, and in the development of the mining-energy project. The main victims of this omission are peasant communities, indigenous peoples, rural populations or other groups in situations of vulnerability and historical discrimination"" (Ibid). The Centre identified prohibitions on online or physical access to information, lack of training, and arbitrary application of disclosure categories as common limitations faced by communities attempting to exercise their right to access to public information (Ibid). During the hearing, the petitioners requested that (1) ""the IACHR to demand that the states of Guatemala, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic comply effectively with the laws of transparency, access to information, participation and consultation"", (2) these states be required to ""[develop] indicators to assess the impact of extractive megaprojects on human rights"", and (3) ""that members of the IACHR visit the regions affected by the projects exposed during the hearing"" (DAR, 2017). The Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression further emphasized the need to ratify and comply with the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement), which on 27 September 2018 was signed by 15 of 33 countries in the region, exclusive of Nicaragua (DAR 2017, ECLAC). Nicaragua was one of 12 countries to ratify, of the 24 signatories to, the Escazú agreement, which entered into force in April 2021. This hearing was held as part of the IACHR's 161st Period of Sessions. In its report on the session, the IACHR stated that ""[v]iolating the right of access to information violates other rights such as the right to life, to a healthy environment, to health, to personal integrity, and so on"" (IACHR Report, 2017). The Commission did not make any specific recommendations in its report.  A video of the hearing is available through the IACHR referenced below. ",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Non-Profit Organizations,"Humboldt Centre|Law, Environment and Natural Resources (DAR)|Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD)","La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Journalistic Reports,Nicaragua,Inter-American System,Gold,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to defend rights 2013 Criminalization of Protests and Mining Opposition Movements,"After the arrival of B2Gold and its subsidiary, Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), in the Department of Chontales, there were several reported cases of criminalization, violence, threats, and forced displacement against local residents and opponents of large scale mining, particularly in the municipality of Santo Domingo (CENIDH, 2013; Revista Envío, 2013). In 2012, residents of Santo Domingo wrote to the Nicaraguan Centre on Human Rights (CENIDH) to request support and advice in their struggle against the mine. In September 2012, residents of Santo Domingo protested against the arrival of B2Gold, in part, because it extracted large quantities of gold from local deposits, which led to the contamination of water sources, damaged acquifers, and threatened the economic livelihoods of approximately 3,600 people who worked in the small-scale mining industry. The protestors erected an encampment to prevent the company from continuing with its operation. The protestors included representatives from small scale, artisanal mining organizations, such as El Cafetal (the Coffee Plantation), Sector La Cuatro (Sector Four), Lavadores del Barrio Pancasán 1 (Washers of the Pancasán Neighbourhood 1), Lavadores del Barrio Pancasán 2 (Washers of the Pancasán Neighbourhood 2), Lavadores del Barrio Carlos Fonseca (Washers of the Carlos Fonseca Neighbourhood), and the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD). Negotiations between the company and these groups was mediated by the Chief of the National Police of Chontales. Departmental and municipal representatives of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) were also present at the negotiations. Ultimately, the representatives of El Cafetal (The Coffee Plantation), Lavadores del Barrio Carlos Fonseca (Washers of the Carlos Fonesca Neighbourhood), and the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD) withdrew from the negotiations because they were held at the police station where, upon their arrival, they were seized, photographed, and pressured to enter into agreements. These groups advised that they would only engage in negotiations if mediated by the local parish priest and the elected mayor of Santo Domingo (CENIDH, 2013). The protest continued for 105 Days (Envío Digital, 2013, No. 381). In the early morning of 9 February 2013, approximately 200 anti-riot officers violently evicted and detained more than 50 representatives of El Cafetal [The Coffee Plantation] and the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD) who were at the encampment blocking B2Gold workers. According to reports, approximately 141 persons were injured by police and others fled to the hills in fear of being arrested and detained (Ibid). Of those detained, some were held in Juigalpa while twelve leaders of the MASSD were transfered to the jails of the Legal Cooperation Department (DAJ) in Managua. This detention centre, known as ""La Loma"" or ""El Chipote"", was used during the time of the dictatorship to hold political prisoners who were tortured and killed. Since then, it has generally been used for high risk detainees or those accused of committing serious crimes. Those detained by the DAJ were prohibited from receiving visits from their families or lawyers (Ibid). A hearing for those detained by the DAJ was held on 25 February 2013, where the matter was referred to trial and the detained were ordered to remain in pre-trial detention. During this hearing, the Nicaraguan Centre for Human Rights (CENIDH) contested the presence of a member of the Nicaraguan military who remained throughout the proceeding (CENIDH, 2013). In a report, dated March 2013, CENIDH called on the Chief Comissioner and the Chief of the National Police to review the disproportionate, arbitrary and illegitimate use of police force against Santo Domingo residents who engaged in protests for the defence of human rights, adding that the action of the police had only caused danger, illegal detentions and fear among residents, and favoured the interests of B2Gold (Ibid). CENIDH also called for, among other things, a review of the exact basis of the charges laid against the detainees, including the crimes of threats, aggravated injuries, minor injuries, obstruction of public officials, and usurpation of private property, among charges. CENIDH also called for the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), along with other relevant authorities, to consider the rights and interests of local residents and to take the necessary steps to stop the negative consequences of open pit mining (Ibid). In April 2013, after more than a month in prison and pressure to end their protests the remaining detainees were released (OMCT and FIDH, 2014). In 2014, a group of residents from Santo Domingo brought a civil action for injuries arising from the actions of the police on 9 February 2013 (CENIDH, 2014). According to Mario Sánchez González (2016), the socio-environmental and economic conflicts surrounding La Libertad Mine are due, in part, to non-compliance with the Law on the Environment and Natural Resources (No. 217), the General Environmental Law, and Decree 76-2006 on the System of Environmental Evaluation (repealed and replaced by Decree No. 20-2017;See the Legal Action, entitled ""1997-2017 Nicaraguan Mining and related Laws"" for further information regarding the status of these laws). The introduction of the Sovereign Security Law of the Republic of Nicaragua in December 2015 has also contributed to the ""institutionaliz[ation] [of] the criminalization of any act of protest, such as peaceful demonstrations, which 'have been the main form of demanding rights in Nicaragua'"" (DAR, 2017). More generally, in the context of national political and social unrest that began in April 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed ""concern"" regarding ""an adverse environment for social protest, through a strategy of criminalization and stigmatization"" (IACHR, 2018). It noted occurances of deaths and injuries of protestors, arbitrary detention, and labelling of protestors as ""terrorists"" or accusing them of ""attempting to overthrow the government"" (Ibid). In September 2018, the Nicaraguan National Police declared public demonstrations illegal and ""deployed riot police against anti-government protestors attempting to exercise their basic right to peaceful dissent"" (WOLA, 2018). While these events are not directly related to protests against La Libertad mine, they form an important part of the context in which mining opposition may occur and are likely to impact ongoing social mobilisation efforts to oppose its operations in Santo Domingo and La Libertad.",Grassroots Movements|Labour Organizations|Municipal Institutions|Office of the Public Prosecutor|State Institutions, Lavadores del Barrio Pancasán 2  (Washers of the Pancasán Neighbourhood 2)|El Cafetal (The Coffee Plantation)|Lavadores del Barrio Carlos Fonseca (Washers of the Carlos Fonseca Neighbourhood)|Lavadores del Barrio Pancasán 1 (Washers of the Pancasán Neighbourhood 1)|Nicaraguan Centre for Human Rights (CENIDH)|Nicaraguan Military|Nicaraguan National Policy|Sandanista National Liberation Front (FSLN)|Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD)|Sector La Cuatro (Sector Four),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to safety and personal integrity "2018 Community condemns Company-led ""Consultation Processes""","On 15 January 2018, B2Gold, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.), held a consultation on the environmental impacts of its planned exploration to the west of ""Tajo La Antena"" project, a portion of La Libertad Mine project located near the Jabalí neighbourhood in Santo Domingo's town centre (also known as, Jabalí Antena Underground project). The residents rejected industrial mining in their communities, citing concerns for environmental damage and disruptions to daily life, such as nightly land tremors caused by the mining equipment used to drill into the ground. The residents left the consultation and marched in the streets of Santo Domingo, protesting against industrial mining. The company advised that it would hold three further consultations and that opinions on the impacts of its project should be submitted in writing to the General Directorate of Environmental Quality (DGCA) (Articulo 66, 2018) (Note, the Articulo66 article also includes an embedded video of the demonstration). The ineffectiveness of company-led consultations was also noted in an interview conducted with representatives of the Nicaraguan Centre for Human Rights (CENIDH) as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project. They noted that B2Gold held a consultation regarding the environmental impacts of an earlier portion of the project. Residents were given one-week's notice of the consultation, which itself was not widely publicized. In June 2017, a group of community and social movements announced the formation of the National Environmental Movement against Industrial Mining, with the objective of securing participation by community residents in consultations relating to industrial mining operations. This group's members include the Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD) (No a la Mina, 2017).",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements,B2Gold|Desarrollo Minero de Nicaragua S.A. (DESMINIC S.A.)|National Environmental Movement against Industrial Mining|Save Santo Domingo Environmental Movement (MASSD),"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Nicaragua,Nicaraguan System,Gold,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,Right to consultation 2009 Latin American Water Tribunal holds Forum on Open Pit Mining,"In 2009, the Tribunal held a forum focused on the impact of open pit mining in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Peru. The panel considered, among other things, the fact that the mining projects at issue were owned by foreign transnational corporations and the lack of capacity of governments and companies to develop projects in tropical environments, and warned against the negative impacts of open pit mining experienced by these countries.",Civil Society Organizations,,"La Libertad and Santo Domingo, Chontales",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Nicaragua,Latin American Water Tribunal,Gold,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to health|Right to water 1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Marlin],"The mining industry in Guatemala is governed by, among other things, the General Mining Law. This law was initially passed in 1997, following a peace process that ended the 1960-1996 internal conflict. It was criticized by some Guatemalan civil society and legal groups for creating a low royalty rate of 1% and failing to establish a robust procedure relating to the requirements for environmental impact assessments and consultation mechanisms for directly affected communities. Criticisms were also raised regarding inconsistencies between requirements under the Environmental Protection Law and the mining licence approval process under the General Mining Law. In 2006, draft amendments to the Mining Law were prepared by the Environmental Commission of Congress. Initially, the amendments contemplated prohibiting companies from submitting fragmented or partial environmental impact assessments that only reported on the impact of parts or phases of a project, rather than the project as a whole. This issue was raised in the context of the licence approval processes for the Cerro Blanco project and concerns that the environmental impact of the project was not adequately considered. However, the ultimate proposed reforms contained no language regarding these types of fragmented assessments. There was no contemplation of the requirements for environmental studies, other than that mitigation studies had to be presented but did not have to be approved for the licence to be considered. Further amendments were made in 2012/2013, following a four year moratorium on mining arising from a successful constitutional challenge in 2008. These amendments were part of a larger constitutional reform package and purported to allow the state to become a shareholder in all companies that extract natural resources. The proposed law was upheld by the Constitutional Court following a second constitutional challenge in 2012 relating to alleged violations of the right of indigenous peoples to prior consultation in regards to mining activities (see the Legal Action titled, ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Marlin]"", for more detail). Also in 2012, the Guatemalan government entered into agreement with mining companies establishing a process for paying ""voluntary royalties"" above those required by law. In 2014, the Guatemalan government sought to increase the mandatory mining royalty rate from 1% to 10%. This increase was opposed by industry groups on the basis that it risked damaging Guatemala's attractiveness to investors from the extractive industry. The increase was further challenged at the Constitutional Court in an action brought by, among others, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations, the head of the Congressional Legislative Bloc of the National Unity of Hope party (UNE), the Chamber of Industry, and the mayor of the municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán in the department of San Marcos (the location of the Marlin Mine). The action was granted in September 2015, thereby declaring the royalty increase unconstitutional.",State Institutions,Congress of Guatemala|Energy and Mining Commission|Environmental Commission of Congress,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Government Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Marlin],"On 19 June 2008, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala declared seven provisions of the 1997 Mining Law unconstitutional based on a failure to comply with Guatemala's environmental laws. In particular, the court agreed with the Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS) that the following aspects of the Mining Law breached the state's obligation to protect the environment: (1) the fact that administrative inaction for longer than 30 days in response to Environmental Impact Assessments amounted to implied approval; (2) the permissiveness regarding the release of contaminated waters from mining activities; and (3) the Mining Law's requirement that companies mitigate waste and noise only to the ""extent possible"" (Abate and Aldana, 2015). This constitutional challenge was filed in response to the social conflict, environmental concerns, and lack of government engagement with community representatives in the approval and granting of licences for the Marlin Mine project (Human Rights House Foundation, 2012). However, the Court's findings applied broadly to all mining operations, including the Cerro Blanco project, impacted by the provisions of the 1997 Mining Law that the Court ruled unconstitutional. Indeed, following this decision, the government instituted a moratorium on all new mining licences until amendments could be made to the Mining Law. The moratorium was lifted in 2012 following the introduction of legislative amendments by the Guatemalan government (see Legal Action, titled ""1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Marlin]"", for more detail). In March 2012, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) filed a constitutional challenge of these amendments, arguing that the new law violated their rights as indigenous peoples to be consulted with respect to mining activities impacting their territories. The Constitutional Court released a decision upholding the mining law in 2013. Some groups considered this decision to be a reversal of a 2011 Constitutional Court decision whichdeclarethe consultation rights of indigenous peoples to be protected by the Guatemalan constitution (see ""2011-2018 Constitutional Challenge of Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Marlin]"" for more detail). In response to the 2013 decision, the CPO filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (see ""2013 Petition to IACHR filed by Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples [Marlin]"" for more detail). The CPO represents Mayan indigenous communities in Guatemala. As such, their legal actions at the national and international level have a direct impact on the Marlin Mine project, as the municipalites surrounding the mine (San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa) are ""predominantly Mayan (the majority in San Miguel being Maya Mam, and the majority in Sipacapa being Maya Sipakapense)"" (MICLA). Their actions also relate to indigenous rights more broadly, including those of the Xinka indigenous communities, which are impacted by the Escobal mining project.",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to natural resources|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to territory|Right to water" 2011-2018 Constitutional Challenge to Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Marlin],"On 23 March 2011, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) brought a legal action (amparo) before the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a draft regulatory law. The draft bill was entitled ""Regulations regarding the Consultation Process under the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries"", which included a 30-day notice period from the date of publication for public comments and proposals on the draft provisions. Upon expiration of the 30-day notice period, the final version of the regulation would be issued. The CPO argued that the draft regulation violated, among other things, indigenous rights, consultation rights, and the principle of due process. The Court ruled in favour of the CPO's action, ordering the government to re-launch its regulatory initiative regarding consultation procedures for indigenous peoples through appropriate means. It further confirmed that the indigenous right to consultation is protected by the Guatemalan constitution. However, some critics argued that the Constitutional Court's subsequent dismissal in 2013 of the CPO's constitutional challenge to amendments of the General Mining Law effectively overturned the constitutional status of indigenous consultation rights (see the Legal Action, entitled ""1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Marlin]"", for more detail). The CPO represents Mayan indigenous communities in Guatemala. As such, their legal actions at the national and international level have a direct impact on the Marlin Mine project, as the municipalites surrounding the mine (San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa) are predominantly Mayan (the majority in San Miguel being Maya Mam, and the majority in Sipacapa being Maya Sipakapense)(MICLA). Their actions also relate to indigenous rights more broadly, including those of the Xinka indigenous communities, which are impacted by the Escobal mining project. Moreover,the Court's decision was not limited to either mining operations or the Marlin mine, as such it had important implications for extractive industries in general, whose projects are often located on or impact indigenous territories. (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2005- Community Consultation Processes [Marlin]"" for related information). Note thatin September 2018, the issue of indigenous rights to consultation was again considered by the Constitutional Court in a case arising from the suspension of Escobal mining licences. In this decision, the court considered the general scope of indigenous peoples' rights to consultation. Despite concerns regarding the 2013 constitutional challenge described above, the court confirmed the constitutional status of this right, along with its recognition ininternational law. However, it also emphasized that the right to be consulted does not create veto rights. The nature of the right is to be consultative, not binding (consultiva y no vinculante). Its primary goal is to ensure the involvement, participation, and gathering of information from affected communities through administrative or other methods (Constitutional Court, 2018, pp. 145-148, 153).",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Journalistic Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2013 Petition to IACHR filed by Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples [Marlin],"In September 2013, the Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples filed a petition against Guatemala before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for systemic violation of the collective rights of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. This petition was filed in response to the 2013 Constitutional Court rulingdismissinga constitutional challenge (amparo)brought by Guatemala’s Western Peoples’ Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO), whichalleged that the 2012 amendments to theMining Law violated indigenous rights to consultation in regards to mining activities on or impacting indigenous territories (see the Legal Action, entitled ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Marlin]"", for more detail). The petition states that Guatemalaviolated the following collective human rights: (1) the rights to participation, consultation, and consent; (2) equality before the law; and (3) the right to access to justice. It requests that the IACHR, among other things, determine Guatemala's responsibilities in relation to the above rights, as enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights. While the petition is not limited to mining operations or the Cerro Blanco or Marlinmines in particular, the action hadimportant implications for these types of projects, which are often located on or impact indigenous territories. According to an interview conducted as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with a representative of the CPO, in 2015, the IACHR notified the Council that their petition had been assigned a file number, but nofurther developments were reported.",Indigenous Organizations,Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Inter-American System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to natural resources|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to self-determination|Right to territory|Right to water" 2008- Moratoriums on Metallic Mining [Marlin],"In 2008, the Government of Guatemala, then led by President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of the National Unity of Hope (UNE) party, instituted a moratorium on issuing new mining licences. This moratorium was triggered in 2008 by a successful constitutional challenge to the country's General Mining Law, which was filed in the context of opposition to the Marlin Mine. The moratorium was lifted in March 2013 when new amendments to the law (proposed to address the 2008 Constitutional Court ruling) were upheld by the Constitutional Court (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Marlin]"", for more detail). In July 2013, a second moratorium on new mining licences was proposed by President Otto Pérez Molina, of the Patriotic Party (PP), in connection to conflicts and opposition to the Escobal mining project. The proposed moratorium was rejected by the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) as ""a political show intended to calm widespread resistance to harmful mining projects [...]"" (NISGUA, 2013). It noted that the government had already lifted the 2008 moratorium, allowing for ""the massive granting of unconsulted licences for mining in indigenous territories"" (ibid). The new moratorium would be ""contradictory because during the last year and a half the Executive has granted roughly 100 mineral mining licenses"" (ibid). At the time of the proposed moratorium, the Escobal project had already been approved and would not have been affected by the proposal. Moreover, in the same month, Goldcorp Inc. announced the suspension of the Cerro Blanco project, meaning that it also would not have beenimpacted by the proposed moratorium. Ultimately,the moratorium was not implemented. This issue arose again in 2016 when the political party, Convergence, proposed a law providing for a five year moratorium on reconnaissance, exploration, and exploitation licences for metallic mining and hydroelectric activities. The proposal was rejected in August 2016 by the Congressional Committee of Energy and Mines.",Politicians and/or Political Parties,Convergence (political party)|National Unity of Hope (UNE)|Patriotic Party (PP),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Academic Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Executive Orders and Actions, 2005- Community Consultation Processes [Marlin],"Between 2005 and 2016, approximately 80 community consultations (consultas comunitarias), also known as popular consultations (consultas populares or consultas), were held across Guatemala, resulting in a large majority of citizens voting against mining and other commercial activities in their territories (Ardon, 2016). The ""consulta movement"" in Guatemala began in 2005 in response to a hydroelectric project in Río Hondo, Zacapa, and was quickly adopted by communities affected by the Marlin Mine (Laplante Nolin, 2014). Communities turned to the consulta process as a democratic and peaceful mechanism for participating in decision making relating to projects affecting their communities (Guatemala Comunitaria, 2016). The process is based on national laws, such as the Guatemalan Municipal Code, and the rights of consultation and participation enshrined in international instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Ibid). In particular, the ILO Convention No. 169 requires that contracting states (including Guatemala) obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from affected communities before proceeding with commercial activities on or impacting their territories, and that the process for obtaining such consent should follow customary procedures (Walter and Urkidi, 2016). In some instances, for example, consultas relating to the Marlin Mine and Escobal projects, the process is also governed by indigenous law and community governance structures, and has been described as ""indigenous direct democracy"" (Imai, 2007; Abott, 2014; NISGUA, 2016). According to Professor Shin Imai, ""[f]rom the Indigenous perspective, the authority and jurisdiction to act does not arise from Guatemalan legislation. The authority arises from the inherent rights that come with being an Indigenous people"" (Imai, 2007). Some reports indicate that the Guatemalan government has ""made little effort to listen to the community’s concerns and decisions"" as expressed through the consulta process and, in some instances, taken ""steps to limit the right of the consulta"" (Abott, 2014). While the results of community consultation processes must be taken into account, the Constitutional Court recently confirmed that they (consultas populares) are not binding on the government, nor do they grant veto powers to affected communities (Corte de Constitutionalidad, 2016). Nonetheless, indigenous and other community organizations have and continue to rely on legally recognized consultation and participation rights to challenge the validity of mining licences across the country. In the Municipality of Sipacapa (one of the municipalities in which the Marlin Mine is located), a community consultation was held on 18 June 2005, pursuant to municipal agreements that were formed under Articles 64 and 66 of the Municipal Code. The municipality took the position that these provisions render the results of any such consultations binding (IACHR Report No. 20/14, Constitutional Court, 2007). However, the Constitutional Court has rejected this position, finding that the nature of these procedures is consultative, not binding (See the Legal Actions, entitled ""2005-2008 Constitutional Challenges to Community Consultation Processes brought by Montana Exploradora"" and ""2011-18 Constitutional Challenge of Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Marlin]"" for more detail). The community consultation in Sipacapa was held after a series of meetings in 2003 held by Glamis Gold in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa. According to the company, these meetings ""attempted to address environmental and other community concerns"" prior to the exploitation phase. The community members, however, still believed that ""the project was developed without adequate and timely consultation of the local and Indigenous Peoples"" and continued with local consultation processes. They were joined by the villages of Huehuetenango and Concepción Tuatuapa in 2006 and 2007, respectively, whose consultation processes resulted in an ""overwhelming"" consensus against the mine (MICLA). Notably, in March 2018, the Labour Commission of the Guatemalan Congress announced that it would begin analyzing a draft bill on proposed procedures for consultation with indigenous peoples (Guatemalan Congress, 2018). The following month, the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) announced that it had started an action before the Constitutional Court challenging this bill for, among other things, violating indigenous rights to consultation and self-determination. The group questioned whether a formal law regulating indigenous consultations processes is necessary, noting that there are over 30 decisions of the Constitutional Court that establish that the non-existence of this type of law is not an obstacle for compliance with the right to consultation by state officials (Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO), 2018). Despite the 2018 Constitutional Court sentence in the Escobal case (see Legal Actions entitled “2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences”) requiring legislators to issue new legislation to regulate the right to consulation of indigenous communities in line with the criteria of its ruling and international norms, as of November 2021 Guatemalan Congress had so far failed to do so as it continued to deliberate on draft texts for a new mining law (BN Americas, 2021).",Indigenous Organizations,various community and indigenous organizations|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO)|Xinka Parliament,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Government Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,"Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to natural resources|Right to territory" 2018- Draft Bill on Indigenous Consultation Procedures and CPO Constitutional Challenge,"In March 2018, the Labour Commission of the Guatemalan Congress announced that it would begin analyzing a draft bill on proposed procedures for consultation with indigenous peoples (Guatemalan Congress, 2018). The following month, the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) announced that it had started an action before the Constitutional Court challenging this bill for, among other things, violating indigenous rights to consultation and self-determination. The group questions whether a formal law regulating indigenous consultations processes is necessary, noting that there are over 30 decisions of the Constitutional Court that establish that the non-existence of this type of law is not an obstacle for compliance with the right to consultation by state officials (Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO), 2018). The draft bill arose from a history of national and international decisions criticizing the lack of formal procedures for consulting with indigenous peoples prior to the approval of development projects, such as mining projects. The Constitutional Court summarized this history in a 2017 decision involving two hydroelectric dam projects owned by Guatemalan companies, Oxec S.A. and Oxex S.A. II. In this decision, the court emphasized that the creation of a special law regulating internal consultation processes is one of Guatemala's obligations under the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, noting that this position had also been expressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People and repeatedly by the International Labour Organization (See the Legal Actions, entitled ""2007- IACHR petition and precautionary measures regarding Marlin Mine authorization and Mayan communities"", ""2011 Country Visit by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People"", and ""2010-2015 ILO Criticizes Guatemala on Mining and Indigenous Communities [Marlin]"", for more detail). The court added that it had been nearly ten years since the release of its first decision on this issue, which it considered a sufficient and reasonable amount of time for the government to have established a legislative framework for consultation procedures with indigenous peoples. It concluded by finding that the failure on the part of the National Congress to develop these procedures had contributed to a climate of distrust among indigenous peoples who are adversely affected by development projects and their investors. The lack of clarity regarding the scope of the right to consultation similarly impacts the rights of those investors that take on the financial risk of investing in the country. Accordingly, the court ordered the creation of general policy guidelines establishing the applicable standards for complying with indigenous rights to consultation (Constitutional Court, 2017). While this decision was released shortly before the closure of the Marlin Mine project, it and another key ruling by the Constitutional Court in 2018 (See Escobal project) have important implications for the consultation rights of all indigenous peoples in Guatemala. Moreoever, these rights continue to be at issue during the closure and reclamation processes for mining projects. At the time of writing (October 2021), despite various initiatives by the Guatemalan Congress to introduce legislation to regulate consultation procedures, this has not resulted in a new law in line with Constitutional Court rulings.",Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,Labour Commission of the Guatemalan Congress|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Indigenous Organization Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Legislative Commission / Committee Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2005-2008 Constitutional Challenges to Community Consultation Processes brought by Montana Exploradora,"In June 2005, Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc., sought an injunction (amparo) against the Municipality of Sipacapa in the Department of San Marcos challenging the constitutionality of three municipal agreements in which the municipality agreed to consult, in good faith and in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Sipakapa people, with indigenous authorities, the indigenous population of Sipakapense Mayan ancestry, and neighbours over 18 years old, in order to establish whether they are in favour or against mining reconnaissance, exploration, and exploitation of metallic minerals through open pit mining, as proposed in the Municipality of Sipacapa. The purpose of this consultation was to determine if the interests of those consulted were affected and to what extent (Constitutional Court, 2008, Expediente 1643-2005 and 1654-2005). The company argued, among other things, that the municipality did not have the authority to implement voting rights, the natural assets in question belong to the Guatemalan state and cannot be disposed of by a municipal act, the exploitation of minerals is recognized in the constitution as a public necessity, and the impugned municipal agreements went beyond the authority granted under the Municipal Code. The injunction was granted by a lower court and subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court by the Municipality of Sipacapa and the Office of the Public Prosecutor.  The Court found, among other things, that impugned consultation agreements were allowed in accordance with rights enshrined in the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and the Guatemalan constitution. A municipality that consults with its population on issues within the authority of other state institutions is not infringing on or diminishing national sovereignty. It is giving effect to the individual and collective rights to freedom of expression and petition of every citizen. On the issue of whether the results of municipal consultations ought to be considered obligatory, the court referred to an earlier decision involving the Municipality of Sipacapa, in which it held that such consultations are not obligatory in nature. The consultative process may seek community input on any topic that impacts the interests of the community, but its effect cannot be to regulate matters that are within the authority of other state institutions (Constitutional Court, 2007, Expediente 1179-2005). Similarly, in September 2018, the issue of indigenous rights to consultation was again considered by the Constitutional Court in a case arising from the suspension of Escobal mining licences. In this decision, the Court appears to again confirm the constitutional status of this right, along with its recognition in international law. However, it emphasizes that the right to be consulted does not confer veto rights onto consulted communities. The nature of the right is to be consultative, not binding (consultiva y no vinculante). Its primary goal is to ensure involvement, participation, and information from affected communities through administrative or other methods (Constitutional Court, 2018, pp. 145-148, 153).",Company(ies),"Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Government Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to due process 2010-2015 ILO Criticizes Guatemala on Mining and Indigenous Communities [Marlin],"In 2010, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) released a report criticizing Guatemala for, despite earlier comments made in 2005, 2006, and 2007, continuing to issue mining licences without consultation with indigenous communities and for failing to compensate indigenous communities for damages sustained or ""make efforts to reduce the impact of exploitation"". The Committee requested ""the Government to neither grant nor renew any licence for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources as referred to in Article 15 of the Convention while the participation and consultation provided for by the Convention are not being carried out, and to provide information in this regard."" These findings were made in relation to the Committee's assessment of Guatemala's obligations under the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, published during its 98th Committee Session. The Committee received comments on this issue from the Union Movement, Guatemalan Indigenous and Agricultural Workers for the Defence of Workers’ Rights, of which the General Confederation of Workers of Guatemala (CGTG) forms a part, the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (CUSG), the National Trade Union and Peoples’ Coordinating Body (CNSP), the National Federation of Trade Unions of Public Employees of Guatemala (FENASTEG), the Trade Union Federation of Farm Workers (FESOC), the Trade Union of Health Workers of Guatemala, the Eastern Distribution Workers’ Union and the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (UNSITRAGUA)(ILO Report, 2010). At the time of the report's release, the Committee had not received a response from Guatemala on the comments provided by these organizations. At the 101st Committee Session in 2012, the CEACR considered the development of consultation processes relating to the Marlin Mine project. It noted that protective measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2010, requesting that Guatemala suspend the project and ""take effective measures to prevent environmental pollution pending the adoption of a decision by the IACHR concerning the substance of the petition linked to the application for protective measures"" (CEACR Comments, 2012) (See the Legal Action, entitled ""IACHR Petition and Precautionary Measures regarding Marlin Mine Authorization and Mayan Communities"", for more detail). The Committee, among other things: (1) urged the government to ""establish mechanisms for dialogue which [...] enable appropriate solutions [and] that take account of the interests and priorities of the indigenous peoples"" and send detailed information about further developments; (2) urged the government ""to ensure that [the Marlin Mine project does not have] a harmful impact on the health, culture and property of the communities living in the areas affected by the implementation or planning of the [project]""; and (3) requested that the government ""take all the necessary measures to guarantee the integrity of persons and property in the regions affected by the projects and ensure that all the parties concerned refrain from any acts of intimidation or violence against persons who do not share their views on the projects"" (Ibid). The CEACR repeated its concerns regarding the Marlin Mine project and request for detailed information regarding consultation processes in 2013 (102nd Session), 2014 (103rd Session), and 2015 (104th Session) (Ibid).",Multi-Lateral Organizations,International Labour Organization,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Government Reports,Guatemala,United Nations System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2007- IACHR petition and precautionary measures regarding Marlin Mine authorization and Mayan communities,"In December 2007, 13 communities of the Sipakapense Mayan people from Sipacapa, San Marcos filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) against Guatemala regarding the authorization of the Marlin Mine. These communities were later joined by the municipal mayors of Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán as representatives of Sipakapense Mayan and Mam Mayan peoples in their respective municipalities. The petitioners alleged that Guatemala authorized the Marlin Mine ""without prior, free, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous communities and, further, that the negative outcome of a consultation that the communities themselves called for were not taken into account, which the petitioners claim has had serious consequences for the communities"" (IACHR, Report No. 20/14). The petition included a request for precautionary measures, which were granted in May 2010. Through this measure, the IACHR asked Guatemala to suspend the project, and ""to implement effective measures to prevent environmental contamination"", until such time as the IACHR had adopted a decision on the merits of the petition. In June 2010, Guatemala released a statement confirming that it would comply with the requirement to suspend mining activities at the Marlin site (CIEL, 2010). The granting of these precautionary measures was based, in part, on the results of two studies, one completed by scientists of the University of Michigan for Physicians without Borders and the other by the Pastoral Commission of Peace and Ecology (COPAE). These studies were commissioned as a result of several complaints received by the Human Rights Office of the Archbishop of Guatemala from residents in the area surrounding the Marlin Mine regarding the negative health impacts of the project, including skin rashes, hair loss, respiratory difficulties and other disorders that people did not have before the mine (MICLA). However, the precautionary measure was amended in 2011, following a hearing in which representatives of the Sipakapense Mayan people, Mam Mayan people, and the Guatemalan state presented updated information to the IACHR. This amendment lifted the suspension requirement and, instead, asked the state ""to take the necessary measures, in order that the 18 beneficiary communities’ water resources are not contaminated by mining activities"" (IACHR, Precautionary Measure 260/07) (See also, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre reference below for sources regarding lifted suspension). This hearing was held during the IACHR's 140th Regular Period of Sessions, during which the Commission also held hearings on the Situation of Environmentalists in Mesoamerica and the Legal Obstacles for the Recognition and Titling of Indigenous Lands in Guatemala. An audio recording of the precautionary measures hearing is provided in the list of references below. See also Loarca (2016) for a detailed description of the precautionary measures hearing.  In response to the petition, Guatemala filed three preliminary objections, challenging its admissibility on the basis of, among other things, a failure to exhaust domestic remedies and res judicata (Latin for, ""a matter already judged""). The state also challenged the facts as presented by the petitioners (IACHR, Report No. 20/14). In April 2014, the IACHR released an admissibility report, finding the petition to be admissible as to the alleged violations of the following Articles of the American Convention on Human Rights: Article 5 (right to humane treatment), Article 8 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression), Article 19 (rights of the child), Article 21 (right to property), Article 23 (right to participate in government), Article 24 (right to equal protection), and Article 25 (right to judicial protection). The Commission found the petition inadmissible with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 11 (right to privacy) and 26 (progressive development). Once the admissibility of the petition was confirmed, the Guatemalan government began to take steps to implement elements of the precautionary measures described above, including directing the Minister of Public Health and Social Assistance to begin complying with the requirement to provide potable water to the 18 communities affected by the Marlin Mine (See Loarca, 2016 for more detail regarding the steps being undertaken and affected communities). According to an interview conducted in 2017 as part of the Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project, the government, company, and community representatives underwent a process of attempting to reach an amicable resolution to this matter. In February 2020, a Guatemalan congressman asked the Presidential Coordination Commission on the Executive’s Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) to invite representatives of Montana Exploradora, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), and the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) to participate in a Technical Commission (Mesa Técnica) to coordinate and oversee the implementation of IACHR 2011 mandated measures. The Technical Commission met in February 2020 involving representatives of the State, Congress, the company and the municipal governments of Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán. During the meeting, representatives of Montana Exploradora stated the company was working on 11 drinking water supply projects for the affected communities, as well as two similar additional projects. The Technical Commission agreed to establish a timetable for the completion of the projects and their delivery to the communities. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to delays in this process. In addition, in 2020 the government dissolved COPREDEH, replacing it with the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights (COPADEH), with new personnel and a reduced budget.",Indigenous Organizations|Municipal Institutions,Mam Mayan People|Municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán|Municipality of Sipacapa|Sipakapense Mayan people,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Inter-American System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health|Right to water 2010 Constitutional Petition filed by Mayan Communities to Suspend Marlin Mine,"On 2 March 2010, several Mayan communities presenteda petition for constitutional protection with the Guatemalanauthorities,calling for the immediate suspension of all mining activities taking place on Mayan land, including Goldcorp’s Marlin Mine""(Intercontinental Cry, 2010). The petition followed a request by the International Labour Organization (ILO) for information regarding consultation and participation procedures surrounding mining activities, and a recommendation that such activities be suspended while consultation was ongoing (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2010-2015 ILO Criticizes Guatemala on Mining and Indigenous Communities [Marlin]"", for more information). The petition was filed in partnership with the Association of Mayan Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala and 12 communities from the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez. The petition was signed at a meeting with representatives of the 12 communities, who were accompanied by the director of the Campesina Unity Committee (CUC). On 6 April of the same year, a group of 80 national and international organizations filed a request to the Secretary General of the President to enforce the petition filed on 2 March (Loarca, 2016). The mine continued to operate until 2016 when it was suspended due to tunnel collapse that resulted in the death of one worker. It ultimately closed in 2017.",Grassroots Movements|Indigenous Organizations,Association of Mayan Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala|Campesina Unity Committee (CUC),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2007-2008 Constitutional Challenge to Marlin exploitation licences filed by Colectivo Madreselva,"In 2007, the NGO Colectivo Madreselva brought a constitutional proceeding against the Guatemalan President, the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), and the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance. The Association challenged the government's approval of mining exploitation licences for the Marlin Mine project on the basis that it violated the right of defence, the requirement to consult with indigenous peoples, the rights to life, health and a healthy environment, the right to protection of the person, and failed to take into account environmental assessments or guarantee rights to due process. The court dimissed the claim on the basis that, among other things, the impugned licences were issued in accordance with the General Mining Law (Constitutional Court, 2008).",Grassroots Movements|Political Parties and/or Politicians|State Institutions,Association of Madre Selva|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance|Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|President of Guatemala,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2009-2011 Complaint to Canadian National Contact Point for the OECD,"In December 2009, the Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI), assisted by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), filed a request for review with the Canadian National Contact Point (NCP), alleging that Goldcorp Inc. had breached the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in its operation of the Marlin Mine in Guatemala. NCPs are set up by countries adhering to these Guidelines to ""assist enterprises and their stakeholders to take appropriate measures to further the observance of the Guidelines. They provide a mediation and conciliation platform for resolving practical issues that may arise with the implementation of the Guidelines"" (OECD, National Contact Points). In particular, FREDEMI alleged that ""Goldcorp has violated and continues to violate Paragraph 2 of the General Policies of the [Multinational Enterprises] Guidelines, which states that enterprises should, ""respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government’s international obligations and commitments"" (FREDEMI Submissions, 2009). FREDEMI sought closure of the mine and a statement from the NCP. According to an OECD summary of the proceeding, ""[t]he NCP’s initial assessment was that the issues raised merited further examination and offered to facilitate a dialogue between the parties. The offer was accepted by the company. However, the NGOs declined the offer. The NCP attempted to explore whether the notifiers would be willing to participate in facilitated dialogue without any confidentiality requirements. The notifiers also declined the NCP’s second offer of facilitated dialogue with more flexible confidentiality requirements and reiterated their request for a full investigation of the facts, including a field visit and for the NCP to issue a final statement"" (OECD, Mining in Guatemala). The Canadian NCP issued a final statement on 3 May 2011, recommending that ""the parties participate in a constructive dialogue in good faith with a view to addressing the issues raised"" (Canadian NCP, Final Statement).",Non-Governmental Organizations,Association of Mayan Lawyers and Notaries of Guatemala|Campesina Unity Committee (CUC),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Guatemala,OECD System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to water" 2012 Criminal Complaint against Marlin Mine filed by 100 Communities in San Marcos,"In December 2012, leaders and representatives from approximately 100 communities in San Marcos filed a criminal complaint against the Marlin Mine project for unlawful appropriation of water, unlawful appropriation of property, industrial contamination, spreading of disease among plants and animals, intentionally falsifying and misrepresenting public documents (falsedad material y falsedad ideológica), and illegal exploitation of natural resources, among others. The complaint requested that the Office of the Public Prosecutor begin a criminal prosecution against the directors, executives, administrators, officials and employees of Montana Exploradora, S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc., for contamination caused by the Marlin Mine. In support of the complaint, a report was submitted with testimony from more than 100 people affected by the contamination, including photographs of dead livestock and children with skin ailments (OCMAL, 2012). This complaint was filed with the assistance of the Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR) and the Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI).",Non-Governmental Organizations,Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI)|Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to health|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to water 2010 Legal Actions against Montana Exploradora regarding Water Discharge from Marlin Mine,"In September 2010, the Minister of the Environment, Luis Ferraté, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor against Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc., to investigate the discharge of residual waters from the Marlin Mine tailing dams because they may have contaminated the Quivichil river, including heavy metal contamination. The complaint attached a note from the Management Unit of the Ministry of the Environment, indicating that the water was discharged without the Ministry's authorization. The Minister asked the Foreign Ministry to notify the government of Mexico, as the Quivichil river runs into the neighouring country. As a result of this complaint, the Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS) confirmed that it would ask the Office of the Public Prosecutor to start an investigation into the crimes of intentional falsification and misrepresentation of public documents (delitos de falsedad material y falsedad ideológica), articles 321 and 322 of Guatemala's criminal code, because the company had previously confirmed that it was complying with the relevant authorities. Moreover, in 2008, the Constitutional Court had ruled that Montana would only be permitted to discharge water from tailing dams if it was free of contaminants, which implied prior analysis and approval by the Ministry of the Environment.",Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Minister of the Environment,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to health|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to water 2014-2017 Criminal Complaints against the Mayor of San Miguel Ixtahuacán,"In January 2014, the Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI) and the Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR) filed a criminal complaint against the Mayor of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Ovidio Joel Domingo Bámaca, for the crime of servitude committed against five local communities who were the beneficiaries of precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the Guatemalan State and the Goldcorp Inc. (and its wholly owned subsidiary, Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.) in relation to the exploitation of the Marlin Mine (No a la Mina, 2014). These measures required that Guatemala take steps to ensure that affected communities have access to safe drinking water (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2007- IACHR Petition and Precautionary Measures regarding Marlin Mine Authorization and Mayan Communities"", for more detail). In order to comply with these measures, the Mayor required community members to, among other things, (1) provide free labour for building required infrastructure; (2) provide free labour to extract, without prior consultation, natural resources in order to construct said infrastructure; and (3) pay rights of way for lands on which said infrastructure was built. The complainants argued that these requirements violated the American Convention of Human Rights and the Guatemalan Criminal Code. This action was one of three taken by FREDEMI and PLURIJUR against the Mayor, of which one was rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice, the other included a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court regarding pretrial rights, and the third was assigned to a judge (Plurijur, 2015). The decision relating to the constitutional challenge was released in February 2017, dismissing the claim (Constitutional Court, 2017).",Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI)|Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2017 Complaint to the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG),"In February 2017, communities impacted by the extraction of gold and other minerals in the municipalities of San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa filed a complaint with the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) in relation to a network of corruption and cooptation that functioned for the approval of extractive mining licences for Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A., and Goldcorp Inc., particularly in regards to the Marlin Mine project (Prensa Comunitaria, 2017). The complainants requested that the CICIG investigate the arbitrary and illegal forms by which the exploration and exploitation licences and the Environmental Impact Study were approved by public officials, such as the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN). The complainants also noted that the participation of public officials in acts of corruption extended to municipalities, mayors and Community Development Councils of Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán, and requested an investigation of the judiciary and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which are alleged to have benefitted the company by maliciously delaying complaints and investigations filed against it, and failing to enforce prompt and effective justice against all those accused of involvement in the network of corruption behind the Marlin Mine, Montana Exploradora, and Goldcorp Inc. (Ibid). The complaint was filed in partnership with the Maya Sipakapense Council, the Maya Ukux Be' Association, the Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI), and the Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR) (Ibid).   In 2019, the Guatemalan government refused to renew the mandate of CICIG and forced the closure of the UN special investigation unit.",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Governmental Organizations,Front in Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (FREDEMI)|Maya Sipakapense Council|Maya Ukux Be' Association|Pluri-Cultural Legal Association of Guatemala (PLURIJUR),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Company Reports,Guatemala,United Nations System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to due process 2004-2005 Human Rights Ombudsperson’s Office carries out investigation into Marlin mine,"In January 2004, the Collective of Social Organizations of San Marcos (COSAM) made a request to governmental authorities to cancel the exploitation licences granted to Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A., the wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc., owner of the Marlin Mine project. They argued that not stopping the mining licences would result in negative consequences for the local populations of San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa. In particular, they complained that the environmental impacts of open pit mining and the effects of cyanide use had not been considered, nor had the government consulted with the Mayan Mam and Sipakapense communities in the project area, as required by the International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169). COSAM requested the intervention of the San Marcos office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson (PDH) to investigate alleged violations of the right to a healthy environment of residents of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (PDH, 2005). As a result of this complaint, the San Marcos PDH office investigated and issued an institutional resolution (EXP.PREVENCIÓN SM.01-2004/D.S.) which recommended the authorities modify the handling of the concession to take into account the violation in the right to healthy environment of the inhabitants of the municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán as well as violations in the right to health of the population, including mine workers. It also highlighted violations in the specific rights of indigenous peoples (Constitutional Court, 2006;1). In 2005, the PDH of Guatemala also produced a report, “Mining Activity and Human Rights in Guatemala”. The report concluded that existing mining legislation should be repealed, and new legislation enacted in line with standards of ILO Convention 169. It stated that mining as presently conducted caused grave impacts on health and the environment, and provoked social conflicts, particularly violating the rights of indigenous communities (ibid, 54). The PDH recommended that resource exploitation must only take place with prior consultation and acceptance of affected communities. The report also recommended that the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) should consider rescinding the gold and silver exploitation licence for the Marlin mine and stop other concessions, until such a time as there was clarity with regard consultation processes in line with ILO Convention 169. The PDH called on MEM and MARN to conduct a full review of the mining sector to clarify impacts on the environment and sustainable development (ibid, 55).",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,"Collective of Social Organizations of San Marcos (COSAM)|Human Rights Ombudsperson (Guatemala)|Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.|San Marcos Human Rights Ombudsperson (PDH)","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health" 2005 Complaint to CAO against the Marlin Mine Project by Sipacapa residents,"In March 2005, residents of the municipality of Sipacapa filed a complaint with the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent complaints mechanism for the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The CAO reports directly to the President of the World Bank Group, and facilitates complaints relating to projects financed by these organizations. The complaint asked that IFC’s loan to the Marlin project be revoked on the following basis: (1) Water demand from the mine will deny access by communities to their water supplies, (2) the mine will use unsafe processing methods that will contaminate the environment and the water supplies used by people downstream, (3) the rights of indigenous people have been violated as a result of failure by the project to consult with them about the proposed development and its environmental and social impacts, and (4) the presence of the mine is resulting in social conflict, violence and insecurity. As part of its investigation, the CAO visited the project site, interviewed the complainants, other local groups, national and international civil society leaders, and reviewed documents from the IFC and Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A., the wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc., among other things. In September 2005, the CAO found that ""the people of Sipacapa are not likely to be impacted significantly by the project"", adding that there exists ""considerable legitimate space for both the company and complainants to reflect on an appropriate course towards resolving the current dispute."" In this regard, the CAO set out a series of recommendations relating to the ""enhanced participation by local people in forwards-looking decisions related to future exploration, royalties, environmental monitoring, and distribution of benefits"", which it considered a ""constructive [step] to promoting dispute resolution"" (CAO Assessment, 2005).",Civil Society Organizations|Company(ies)|Multi-Lateral Organizations,"International Finance Corporation (IFC)|Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.|Residents of Sipacapa|Various Civil Society Organizations","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,World Bank System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2012 Peoples' International Health Tribunal Hearing on Goldcorp's Mining Operations in Central America [Guatemala/Marlin],"In July 2012 the Peoples' International Health Tribunal held a hearing regarding three of Goldcorp's mining operations in Latin America, including the Marlin mine project in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos, Guatemala. Testimony was heard from health, environmental, and human rights experts, and members of communities directly affected by the mining operations. The Tribunal ""delivered a guilty verdict to Goldcorp, the host countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, as well as the Canadian Government for supporting and promoting in various ways the irresponsible mining investments in Mesoamerica"" (Health Tribunal, 2012). With respect to the Marlin Mine, the Mam women's indigenous organization, Defending our Mother Earth (Kolol Qnan Tx’otx’ de San Miguel Ixtahuacán) played a leading role in the proceedings (MacLeod, 2017), along with the International Coalition against Mining Injustice in Guatemala (CAMIGUA).",,Defending our Mother Earth (Kolol Qnan Tx’otx’ de San Miguel Ixtahuacán)|International Coalition against Mining Injustice in Guatemala (CAMIGUA),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,International Peoples Health Tribunal,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to natural resources|Right to private property|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to self-determination|Right to territory|Right to water" 2005-2017 Criminalization of and Violence against Protestors and Mining Opponents [Marlin],"Since it began, the Marlin Mine project has been associated with several incidences of violence against environmental and anti-mine protestors, as well as a general trend toward increasing criminalization by the Guatemalan state, with high incidences of protestors and mining opponents being arrested, detained, surveilled, and threatened. One prominent example involves eight Mam Mayan women who, in 2008, were subject to arrest warrants issued against them ""for charges linked to cutting off power lines leading to Goldcorp’s Marlin mine in Guatemala"" (JCAP, 2016). The warrants were issued after multiple attempts by one woman to have the power lines removed from her property, which she argued were installed without consent or legal authority. These efforts included complaints to the Human Rights Ombudsperson Office and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, along with appeals to international human rights organizations (MacLeod, 2017). According to research conducted by Morna MacLeod, in one instance, ""one hundred police were sent to accompany the mine's workers to fix"" structures associated with the power line. On another occasion the police were accompanied by military officers (Ibid). The company was ultimately ordered to remove their power lines from the woman's property (JCAP, 2016). The arrest warrants were also revoked due to the legal expertise and support provided by an indigneous women's organization, called Tz’ununija’ (Macleod, 2017). Another significant example occured in January 2005, during a violent conflict between protestors that were blocking a highway to prevent the passage of mining equipment for the Marlin Mine project that they had previously been advised was being transported to help with the construction of a bridge. Tensions between community members and state and company officials increased over the course of a month, until more than 1,000 members of the Special Police Force and the Military were sent ""to punish"" those participating in the blockade (Sibrián and va der Borgh, 2014).  More broadly, in May 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a press briefing note, expressing concern ""about what appears to be a deteriorating climate for the defence of human rights in Guatemala"", noting that in the 10 days before the briefing note, ""three human rights defenders working with indigenous and peasants’ rights organizations were murdered."" For a detailed overview of the incidences of violence and criminalization associated with the Marlin Mine project, see ""The 'Canada Brand': Violence and Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America"", prepared by the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project.",Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,Environmental and Human Rights Defenders|Guatemalan Military|Indigenous and Campesino Activists|National Civil Police|Special Police Force,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Multi-Lateral Organization Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights 2006-2014 Permanent Peoples' Tribunal hearings on Canadian mining in Latin America [Guatemala/Marlin],"Between 2006 and 2010, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (PPT) held three hearings as part of a session, entitled the ""European Union and transnational corporations in Latin America: policies, instruments and actors complicit in the violations of peoples’ rights."" This session included testimony and evidence relating to the Marlin Mine in Guatemala. In respect to this project, the Tribunal found that Goldcorp Inc. had violated ""the right of self-determination and self-government as well as the right to ownership, possession, use and administration of land and territories, according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."" It further held that, ""the company has colluded with the Guatemalan government to criminalize social struggle and protest by bringing 18 court cases against the farming community in San Miguel Ixtahuacán"" (PPT Judgment, 2010). In 2008, a separate two-day hearing before the PPT during the Social Forum of the Americas, was held in Guatemala. The panel considered seven cases, including one brought by the Communities and Victims of Maya Mam and Sipacapense Indigenous Peoples, the Municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, and the Council of Municipal Communities of Sipakapa, in partnership wtih the Community Social Organizations, the Association of Integral Development of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (ADISMI), the Pastoral Commission on Peace and Ecology (COPAE), the Workers and Peasants Movement (MTC), the Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation, Rights in Action, and the Association for Community Promotion and Development Association (CEIBA). At the end of the hearing, the panel delivered its verdict in front of hundreds of victims and affected communities. The panel, among other things: (1) admonished the governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, along with the home states of the companies operating in these countries, the European Union and various international financial institutions, (2) urged governments to comply with consultation rights and national and international environmental law prior to granting mining concessions, (3) urged governments to comply with national and international law on the rights of workers, and recommended that social and labour organizations work towards the creation of an international legal framework for the regulation and prosecution of transnational companies (PPT, 2008) In December 2014, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal released its verdict relating to a hearing on Canadian mining in Latin America, held over four days in May/June 2014. With respect to Guatemala, the Tribunal focused largely on the Escobal mining project. However, some reference to the Marlin Mine was also made. Overall the Tribunal found that Canadian mining companies (including Goldcorp Inc.) based in Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras and Chile, ""have committed multiple human rights violations"", including the rights to life, self-determination, and full citizenship (PPT Ruling, 2014).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Indigenous Organizations|Labour Organizations|Municipal Institutions|Non-Governmental Organizations,Association for Community Promotion and Development (CEIBA)|Association of Integral Development of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (ADISMI)|Communities and Victims of Maya Mam and Sipakapense Indigenous Peoples|Community Social Organizations|Council of Municipal Communities of Sipakapa|Municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán|Pastoral Commission on Peace and Ecology (COPAE)|Rights in Action|Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation|Workers and Peasants Movement (MTC) ,"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Permanent Peoples Tribunal,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to natural resources|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to self-determination|Right to territory|Right to water" 2008 and 2009 Latin American Water Tribunal Hearings [Guatemala/Marlin],"In 2008, the Latin American Water Tribunal convened its fifth session in Antigua, Guatemala. This session included a complaint brought by the Pluri-Cultural Centre for Democracy (CPD) against Guatemala and Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A. (wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc.) in respect of the Marlin Mine project in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, Department of San Marcos. The complaint claimed that the Environmental Impact Assessment approved by Guatemala would not have been acceptable in the majority of developed countries, raised concern regarding water scarcity as a result of mining operations, as well as the negative impact on water quality (CPD, 2008). In its final decision, the Tribunal, among other things, censured the government of Guatemala for failing to comply with its obligations under the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Principal Number 10 of the Rio Declaration, the Guatemalan Constitution, and the Peace Accords. It also found Montana Exploradora liable for damage caused to the environment and the people of San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa (Loarca, 2016). In 2009, the Tribunal held a conference in Costa Rica on the impact of open pit mining in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Peru. The panel considered the fact that the mining projects at issue were owned by foreign transnational corporations and the lack of capacity of governments and companies to develop projects in tropical environments, and also warned about the negative impacts of open pit mining experienced by these countries.",Civil Society Organizations,Pluri-Cultural Centre for Democracy (CPD),"San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Guatemala,Latin American Water Tribunal,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,Right to natural resources|Right to territory|Right to water 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).",Civil Society Organizations|Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,"Defence of Indigenous Women's Rights (DEMI)|Delegations from indigenous communities and organizations, indigenous ancestral authorities, and comunal and municipal authorities of San Juan Sacatepéquez, San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Huehuetenango|Human Rights Ombudsperson|Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)|National Congressional Commission on Indigenous Peoples|President of Guatemala|President of the Constitutional Court|Presidential Commission for Coordinating Executive Policy in the Field of Human Rights (COPREDEH)|Vice Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Academic Reports,Guatemala,United Nations System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to collective property|Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to health|Right to life|Right to natural resources|Right to private property|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to self-determination|Right to territory|Right to water" 2008-2017 Goldcorp Human Rights Impact Assessment,"Following a series of allegations of human rights violations relating to the Marlin Mine, in 2008, ""a group of shareholders called on Goldcorp to undertake an independent human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of the mine"" (Yap and Scott, 2010). The company created a steering committee to oversee the assessment, which retained On Common Ground Consultants Inc. (""On Common Ground"") to conduct the HRIA (Ibid). In May 2010, On Common Ground delivered a more than 200 page report, including recommendations which highlighted the following categories ""actual infringements"": ""legacy issues"", ""areas of failure"", ""positive impacts"", and ""lack of strategies"" (On Common Ground, Executive Summary, 2010). The report noted concerns about the Guatemalan government's record of implementing and enforcing international human rights standards and emphasized the need for company due diligence about ""country context prior to developing projects or acquiring concessions or operations"" (Ibid). In particular, On Common Ground made findings in the areas of consultation, environment (including the rights to health and water), labour, land acquisition, economic and social investment, security, and access to remedy, and concluded with the following general recommendations: (1) ""the lack of a comprehensive human rights policy must be addressed""; (2) ""continuing human rights impact assessments must be conducted, and current information gaps must also be addressed""; (3) ""measures are needed to entrench respect for human rights at all levels of the corporate hierarchy""; and (4) ""stronger monitoring, auditing, and reporting mechanisms [are] needed"" (Yap and Scott, 2010). Goldcorp released three updates relating to the HRIA in 2010, 2011, and 2017 (Goldcorp Inc.). While the HRIA was an internal, voluntary process, it engaged with international human rights standards, including assessing whether the company was in violation of these standards and the extent of its obligations under international law. The process is thus indicative of the quasi-legal procedures adopted by corporations faced with allegations of human rights violations, particularly when operating in countries that are considered to have weak mechanisms for the protection and enforcement of human rights.",Company(ies)|External Private Consultants,"Goldcorp Inc.|Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A.|On Common Ground Inc.","San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Canadian System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Company Procedures,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to health 1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws,"In 1998, the Honduran Government passed the General Mining Law (""1998 Mining Law""). The law was passed in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch – a natural disaster that caused significant damage throughout the country – and enabled a new regulatory regime for mining in Honduras. Some critics point out that the legislative drafting and enactment process was swift, with only one debate in the National Congress (Middeldorp, 2016). Specific criticisms include concerns that the law ""gave mining companies de facto ownership over the conceded territory, did not establish limits to the number of concessions, did not establish strict environmental controls [or] penalties, and […] allowed for the forced expropriation of communities"" (Middeldorp, 2014). The passage of the 1998 Mining Law and the subsequent arrival of Canadian-owned open pit mining operations that used cyanide-leaching technologies led to the creation of the anti-mining movement (Middeldorp, 2016). In 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared 13 of the 1998 Mining Law’s provisions unconstitutional, including a “provision giving mining companies unlimited access to water” (MiningWatch Canada, 2012). Prior to this ruling, President Manuel Zelaya (Liberal Party of Honduras, PLH) issued a decree declaring a moratorium on new metallic mining concessions, while civil society groups organized efforts to draft and pass a new mining law aimed at, among other things, banning open pit mining operations (See the Legal Actions entitled “2006-2013Moratorium on Mining Concessions” and “2006-2009 Draft Mining Law Proposed by Civil Society Organizations” for more detail). In 2013, the Honduran Government (led by President Porfirio Lobo Sosa, National Party of Honduras, PNH) enacted a new General Mining Law (the ""2013 Mining Law""). This law revoked the 1998 Mining Law and lifted the above moratorium on new mining concessions. The drafting of the 2013 Mining Law involved input from experts assigned by the Canadian International Development Agency, and a socialization process ordered by President Lobo with representatives of both the mining and civil society sectors. These discussions failed to generate a consensus between different interest groups, environmental groups, and other organizations critical of mining, some of which abandoned the negotiations on the basis that, among other things, the proposed law did not include their principal demand – a prohibition on the use of cyanide and open pit mining (Middeldorp, 2016). Once passed, the Honduran National Coalition of Environmental Networks (CONROA) identified the following concerns regarding the 2013 Mining Law: failure to prohibit open pit mining; failure to adequately protect community water sources; fostering consultation processes that are only take placeafter exploration concessions have been granted; failure to include schedule of environmental crimes (as proposed by civil society groups); and denial of access to information about financial and technical aspects of the projects and related companies (MiningWatch Canada, 2013). A constitutional challenge to the 2013 Mining Law was ultimately launched, with the Constitutional Chamber declaring seven of 20 impugned articles unconstitutional in a decision released in June 2017 (see the Legal Action, entitled ""2006-2017Challenges to Honduran Mining Laws"", for more detail). In 2019 and 2020, Congress approved reforms to the Mining Law to address the invalidation of articles by the 2017 Supreme Court ruling, and to make mining concessions more attractive for foreign investment by reducing the tax levy. Both reforms were criticised by Civil Society Organizations as reinforcing the Honduras' dependence on the extractives model and weakening accountability of mining companies and environmental protections(Proceso hn, 2019, Criterio hn, 2020).",Grassroots Movements|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Civic Alliance for Democracy (ACD)|Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH)|National Coalition of Environmental Networks of Honduras (CONROA)|National Congress|National Party of Honduras (PNH)|President Manuel Zelaya|President Porfirio Lobo Sosa,"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2006-2013 Moratorium on Mining Concessions,"A moratorium on new mining concessions was originally proposed in 2004 by the Minister of Natural Resources. According to the Honduras Accompaniment Project (PROAH), this proposal was based on the following two factors: (1) the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) and the Civic Alliance for Mining Law Reform demonstrated to the Executive Directorate for the Promotion of Mining (DEFOMIN) that it was granting concessions to Goldcorp Inc. without complying with legislative procedures; and (2) the National March for Life demanded the cancellation of all mining and timber concessions (PROAH, 2013). The official moratorium was established by Presidential Decree, issued by President Manuel Zelaya (Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH)) in February 2006 (Decreto de Suspención de la Mineria Metalica, PCM-09-2006). The preamble of the decree cites the need to revise existing legislation in accordance with the state’s obligation to protect the environment and ensure sustainable exploitation of natural resources. It prohibits the Secretary of State in the Offices of Natural Resources and the Environment from granting metallic mining concessions for a period of one year or until reforms to the existing mining legislation are approved by the National Congress. The moratorium was ultimately lifted by the enactment of a new General Mining Law in 2013 (see the Legal Action entitled “1998-2013Honduran Mining Laws”, for more detail).",Grassroots Movements|Politicians and/or Political Parties,Civic Alliance for Mining Law Reform|President Manuel Zelaya|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Executive Orders and Actions, 2006-2009 Draft Mining Law proposed by civil society organizations,"In 2006, the Civic Alliance for Democracy (ACD), a network of 35 social organizations in Honduras working to defend the interests of communities against mining companies, submitted a proposal for a new mining law that, among other things, ended the use of cyanide and other toxic substances, prohibited open pit mining, required community consultations/referendum prior to the granting of new licences, and defended Honduras' national sovereignty over its natural resources by preventing the appropriation of its territories by mining companies. The same year, President Manuel Zelaya (Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH)) declared a moratorium on new concessions to mining companies pending further consideration of public concerns regarding open pit mining and cyanide use (Middeldorp, 2016) (See the Legal Action entitled “2006-2013 Moratorium on Mining Concessions”, for more detail). The ACD’s efforts to pass its proposed mining law were blocked by the then President of the National Congress, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, who would later become the President of Honduras as leader of the National Party of Honduras (PNH). Nonetheless, the proposed law was ultimately scheduled to be debated in Congress in August 2009. The law was opposed by industry groups, such as the National Association of Metallic Mining of Honduras (ANAMIMH), which exerted significant pressure on President Zelaya, resulting in the dismissal of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment, who was considered to be open to dialogue with anti-mining movements (Middeldorp, 2016). In June 2009, a military-backed coup removed President Zelaya from office. He was replaced by President Lobo in a post-coup election. The bill proposed by the ACD did not proceed in the National Congress. The government of President Lobo created the National Congress Mining Commission, which was tasked with gaining acceptance for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and promoting a new mining law (Middeldorp, 2016). Organizations, such as the Central American Institute of Fiscal Studies (ICEFI), identified many gaps in the initiative that limit its effectiveness as a transparency mechanism, including the relatively voluntary nature of disclosure requirements. As an open pit mining operation using cyanide leaching technology, the ACD-proposed bill would have had an important impact on the San Martín project, if it had been passed by Congress.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,Civic Alliance for Democracy (ACD)|Honduran Private Business Council (COHEP)|Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH)|National Association of Metallic Mining of Honduras (ANAMIMH)|National Congress|National Congress Mining Commission|National Party of Honduras (PNH)|President Manuel Zelaya|President Porfirio Lobo Sosa|Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment (SERNA),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Popular Law Drafting and Procedures, 2006-2017 Constitutional Challenges to Honduran Mining Laws,"In 2006, a constitutional challenge was brought on behalf of 20 Honduran citizens, including representatives of the Honduran Association of Environmental and Agro-Forest Journalists (AHPAAF) and the Committee for the Defense and Development of the Gulf of Fonseca Plant and Wildlife, against the 1998 Mining Law. The Court found that 13 of the legislation's provisions were unconstitutional, including a provision which allowed companies to expropriate the land of any person who did not reach an agreement with the mining company or opposed mining on his or her property. The 1998 Mining Law was ultimately replaced by the 2013 Mining Law (see Legal Action entitled,""1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws"" for more detail). This new law faced two separate constitutional challenges in 2014 brought by the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC) and the Honduran Institute for Environmental Law (IDAMHO), among others. Of the 20 challenged provisions, 7 were found unconstitutional in a court decision released in June 2017. The impugned provisions included articles relating to, among other things, the use of natural resources by transnational corporations, control over vacant lands, and the use of mercury, cyanide, and lead in mining operations (Criterio.hn, 2017). As a result of the 2017 constitutional decision, the Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines (INHGEOMIN) advised that it had not approved any mining concessions during October 2017. However, according to areport published in March 2018by the CEHPRODEC there were 302 registered metallic and non-metallic mining concessions, with an additional 193 requests in process at the INHGEOMIN as of September 2017. In 2019 and 2020, Congress approved reforms to the Mining Law to address the invalidation of articles by the 2017 Supreme Court ruling, and to make mining concessions more attractive for foreign investment by reducing the tax levy. Both reforms were criticised by Civil Society Organizations as reinforcing the Honduras' dependence on the extractives model and weakening accountability of mining companies and environmental protections(Proceso hn, 2019, Criterio hn, 2020).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements,Committee for the Defense and Development of the Gulf of Fonseca Plant and Wildlife|Honduran Association of Environmental and Agro-Forest Journalists (AHPAAF)|Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC)|Honduran Institute for Environmental Law (IDAMHO),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings, 2007- Municipalities Declare Territories Free of Mining [San Martín],"Between 2013 and 2015, approximately 20 municipalities across Honduras declared themselves ""territories free of mining"" by holding public referenda (cabildos abiertos) in which communities voted on whether to allow mining operations where they lived. These municipalities included, among others, Sabá and Balfate in Colón; Danlí and Teupasenti in El Paraíso; El Negrito, El Progreso and Yorito in Yoro; Dulce Nombre de Culmí, Juticalpa and Olancho in Olancho; Sánta Barabara, Sán Nicolás, Atima, Colinas, and San Francisco de Ojuera in Sánta Barbara; Chinaclas and San Jose de la Paz in La Paz; Belen Gualcho in Ocotepeque; and Jesus de Otoro in Intibuca. These types of public referenda date back to before 2013, with Santa Barbara first holding on 2007 and again in 2013 (see Upside Down World, 2015). In some instances, the declaration was preceded by large demonstrations. For example, in El Negrito, it took place ""after a mobilisation of 10,000 people"" (Middeldorp, 2014: 111). In some communities, the process for proceeding with a referendum on mining begins with training meetings, referred to as capacitaciones. The meetings may “last several days”, during which community representatives learn, among other things “about the emergence of the extractivist model in 1998; the history of the anti-mining movement; the mining law; the impacts of mining; the complicity of the state and the partiality of INHGEOMIN [the Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines]; the Chinese expansion in Honduras; the community members' rights as citizens, and how to legally block a mine” (Ibid). The declaration of communities as “territories free of mining” is based, in part, on the requirement in the 2013 Mining Law that communities be consulted before a mining project proceeds to the exploitation phase (See the Legal Action, entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws”, for more detail). As described by Nick Middeldorp, an anthropologist based at Wageningen University and Research Centre, the declarations are “more symbolic than legal” because “exploration activities [which occur before the exploitation phase] cannot be legally prevented with this declaration.”The legal procedure for conducting a public referendum (cabildo abierto) is provided for in the Law on Municipalities. While this public referenda tool gained prominence after closing of the San Martín mine in 2010, the impact of this mining operation on the Siria Valley is used during capacitaciones as an example by which“mining is actively framed as a threat to the right to a healthy environment and a threat to life itself by giving special attention to the substance of water” (Ibid). If resources allow, community members may also visit the Siria Valley to speak with residents about their experiences with mining (Ibid). In addition to these community-level public referenda, legal and political actions are also taken in relation to the rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities to consultation and free, prior and informed consent, as enshrined in the International Labour Organization Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169), among other international instruments (See the Legal Action, entitled “Proposed Consultation Law”, for more detail).",Grassroots Movements,"Movement for Dignity and Justice (MADJ)|National Federation of Farm Workers|Various other national and local community, social, and environmental organizations","San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum, 2013- Proposed National Consultation Law,"In May 2018, the Honduran government presented a final version of its proposed national consultation law to the National Congress. This proposed law is intended to “codify Honduras’ international legal obligations to respect indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consent (“FPIC”)”, including the rights guaranteed under the  International Labour Organization Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169) (ILO Convention No. 169). The U.N. Special Rapporteur (Relator Especial) on Rights of Indigenous People reviewed the history of the proposed national consultation law in a report, dated 22 December 2016. The Special Rapporteur noted that the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH) participated for several years in meetings to discuss the draft law, preparing its own draft versions for consideration in, for example, March 2013 and February 2015. In May 2015, the Honduran government established an Inter-Institutional Roundtable on ILO Convention No. 169, coordinated by the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH). In 2016, the Roundtable prepared a final version of the draft consultation law, based on the previous drafts submitted by CONPAH and DINAFROH, and in consultation with other state institutions. The U.N. Development Programme supported the work of the Roundtable and, at the request of the government, facilitated meetings with indigenous representatives on the draft law developed by the Roundtable (Special Rapporteur Report, 2016). At the same time, organizations connected to the Observatory of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, including the Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH) and the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), publically criticized the government’s drafting and socialization process for the consultation law, with the Observatory presenting its own draft, entitled Framework Law on Consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent, in May 2016 (Ibid). The Special Rapporteur noted that, while the Honduran government held 18 workshops between May and October 2016 with representatives of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities on the draft consultation law, these participants did not have a leading role in the process. For example, indigenous representatives were required to comment on a government-prepared draft, which they received four weeks before the workshops. Moreover, indigenous participation in the workshops was limited to certain groups, resulting in the exclusion of others, particularly those connected to the Observatory. The Special Rapporteur ultimately concluded, among other things, that the process of developing a law on prior consultation of indigenous peoples must procedurally and substantively comply with international human rights standards, including developing a process of adequate consultation on the law with the greatest number of indigenous organizations and peoples possible, ensuring consensus among the indigenous organizations and peoples regarding the methodology and procedures for consulting on the draft law, and ensuring that the final text is a product of consensus with the goal of avoiding limited discussions on drafts prepared by the government or other external actors (Ibid). In June 2018, the Garífuna Peoples of Honduras convened an assembly on the draft consultation law submitted to the National Congress in May 2018. The assembly decided to reject the draft proposed by the Honduras government on the basis that, among other things, it violates their right of self-determination (Criterio.hn, 2018). The draft law is also rejected by OFRANEH, which has described the draft as an information to create an instrument to legitimize the displacement of their communities from their territories for the implementation of “projects of death” (OFRANEH, 2018). Criticisms of the draft law include a rejection of provisions that purport to take away the right of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples to withhold consent and the pace of the consultation process, which is required to be completed within four to six months (OXFAM, 2018). In the face of concerted opposition, the draft consultation law was not approved and remains under discussion (SEDH, 2020). While this law does not directly affect the San Martín mining project (which closed in 2010), issues relating to the violation of indigenous and community rights to consultation in the approval, operation, and closure of the mine were significant and form part of the context in which the current draft law is debated.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Indigenous Organizations|State Institutions,Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH)|Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH)|Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH)|Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH)|Garífuna Peoples of Honduras,"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Company Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, "2004-2007 Investigation into water contamination leads to fine against company, overturned by court on appeal","In 2004, a study was ordered by the then Directorate for the Promotion of Mining (DEFOMIN) into contamination of water supplies near San Martín mine.This found that there was evidence of arsenic poisoning in the water supply to the community of Nueva Palo Ralo, a hamlet that had been forcibly relocated by the San Martín mine. The poisoning was traced to a well used for drinking water, which had been constructed by Entre Mares when the community was relocated by the company in 2000. The levels of arsenic recorded were significantly higher than safe levels established by the WHO. As a result, it seems that Goldcorp closed the well without notifying the community. In 2005, an environmental complaint was filed against Entre Maresin relation to shortage of water, displacement of population, and contamination of aquifers with arsenic and heavy metals (IDAMHO and Oxfam 2013). In 2006, water analysis conducted by Lic. Flaviano Bianchini in the nearby community of El Pedernal found evidence of the presence of high levels of arsenic, lead and hexavalent chromium. High levels of arsenic werealso discovered in blood samples from 10 people from El Pedernal and Nueva Palo Ralo. In September 2006, in response to studies, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA) officially confirmed that the Siria Valley was contaminated (Almendares 2011). In 2007, SERNA fined Entre Mares (a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc.) approximately one million lempiras (equivalent to approximately $55,000 US) for pollution and environmental impact, including quality of water used by affected communities. The company appealed the fine, arguing that SERNA failed to provide reliable scientific or technical proof of water contamination or negative impact on residents living in the area close to the mine (La Prensa, 2007). A Honduran court confirmed this position and overturned the fine on the basis that the water sample was unreliable. This decision was upheld on appeal (Archbishop of Baltimore, 2010).",Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Honduran Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA)|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2007 and 2009 Latin American Water Tribunal Hearings,"In 2007, the verdict of the Latin American Water Tribunal (TLA) found the Honduran authorities “responsible for not enforcing their environmental legislation and international commitments to preserve their water sources and their population’s health and wellbeing” (TLA, 2007). In particular, the Tribunal found that Goldcorp’ subsidiary, Minerales Entremares de Honduras was responsible for damaging the environment and health of the inhabitants of the Siria Valley on the basis of evidence presented by the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS). The Tribunal’s jury called on the Honduran authorities and the company to establish an ongoing dialogue with all the parties involved in the dispute and urged them to find solutions to the problems. The Tribunal met in Guadalajara, Mexico in October 2007. In May 2009, the Latin American Water Tribunal held a forum in Costa Rica to explore the regional experiences of open pit mining. Participants included academics, civil society organizations and public officials. The panel focused on the impact of open pit mining in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Peru, warning against the adverse effects in these countries. The Tribunal heard testimony from representatives of the Honduran Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (ASONOG) and the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) regarding the impact of open pit mining on land and water in their country, including the specific impact of the San Martín mine. One of the participants from Honduras testifying on their experience, noted that “""Mining companies always go where there is potential water"" (...) ""The strategies that (mining companies) use is [sic] that they arrive and the government grants them an area to work and then they buy more land and people have to leave” (TLA, 2009).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|Multi-Lateral Organizations,Honduran Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (ASONOG)|Latin American Water Tribunal|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Latin American Water Tribunal,Gold,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings, 2000 Community complaint to Environmental Prosecutor,"In 2000, the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) filed a complaint with the Environmental Prosecutor, accusing Glamis Gold Ltd. (then owner of the San Martín mine) of environmental crimes. The Prosecutor conducted a 10-month investigation and sought arrest warrants for three officials of Minerales Entre Mares de Honduras, S.A., a Glamis Gold wholly owned subsidiary. The warrants were not granted.See the Legal Action, entitled ""2007-2010 Community Complaint to Environmental Prosecutor Leads to Prosecution of Company Officials"" for information relating to a similar complaint launched in 2008.",Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Environmental Prosecutor|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2007-2010 Community Complaint to Environmental Prosecutor,"In 2007, the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) filed a complaint with the Environmental Prosecutor against Entre Mares and Goldcorpregarding water course contamination and health impacts resulting from the San Martín and its closure process. In August 2007, the Forensic Medicine at the Criminal and Forensic Sciences Laboratory carried out blood and urine samples on 61 residents of El Padernal and one from Nueva Palo Ralo, communities near the San Martín mine. The sample group included adults and children, suffering mild and severe symptoms of apparent arsenic and lead poisoning. The report of the Director of the laboratory in October 2007 contained strong evidence of a range heavy metal poisoning among the 62 sample cases. However, the report was not made public nor the 62 individuals who provided blood and urine samples informed of the results for more than 4 years(Almendares, 2011). In 2008 and 2009, engineering experts in environmental impacts of mining from Newcastle University visited the Siria Valley to test water and reviewed official reports monitoring environmental impacts. Their findings were published in a joint CAFOD/CARITAS document, which concluded that there was evidence of ""dangerously high acidity and metal concentrations"" flowing into local streams (Archdiocese of Baltimore, 2010). It also concluded that evidence of contamination present in official reports did not result in remedial action by the company or the authorities. In August 2010, at the point when the San Martín mine had closed,the Environmental Prosecutor finally filed criminal charges against two senior officials of Entre Mares and a former senior official of the Honduran Department for the Administration of Mineral Resources. Company officials denied that activities relating to the operation of the mine have ever polluted the surrounding area. In October 2010, a Honduran court issued a judgment acquitting the accused of charges relating to damageto the environment. The 2007 report by theForensic Medicine at the Criminal and Forensic Sciences Laboratory was apparently not made available as evidence of metal poisoning of the local population to the San Martín mine.",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Environmental Prosecutor|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2011-2013 Criminal charges against Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) members,"In 2011, 17 members of local grassroots organization Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) faced criminal charges, including obstructing a forestry management plan in 2010 in the community of Tepalitos, in the municipality of El Porvenir. In July 2011, CAVS spokesperson, Carlos Amador, and another activist were temporarily detained on these charges, then released on bail conditions requiring them to regularly register with the authorities. The case against the CAVS activists continued through the courts until a judge dismissed the charges in February 2013 amidst intense international scrutiny. CAVS had filed at least 25 legal actions against mining interests since 2006. The above events are part of a general criminalization of human rights defenders in Honduras, including the use of broad terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code against evironmental activists (OHCHR, 2018) (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2018 UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visit to Honduras"", for related information). These activists also experience violence and threats of violence in relation to their work on the protection of natural resources and territory rights (Ibid). One well-known example is the death of human rights defender, Berta Cáceres. She was fatally shot in her home in March 2016 after ""a long battle against a hydroelectric dam project on sacred Lenca territory"" (Guardian, 2018; Lakhani, 2020). The criminal trial of 8 men accused of the murder began in September 2018, resulting in a number of convictions, including of a senior company official (Ibid).",Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Office of the Prosecutor|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,Non-Governmental Reports,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2012 People's International Health Tribunal Hearing on Goldcorp's mining operations in Central America [Honduras],"In July 2012 the People's International Health Tribunal held a hearing regarding Goldcorp's mining operations in Carrizalillo, Guerrero, México; Valle de Siria [Siria Valley], Francisco Morazán, Honduras; and San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos, Guatemala. Testimony was heard from health, environmental, and human rights experts, and members of communities directly affected by the mining operations. The Tribunal ""delivered a guilty verdict to Goldcorp, the host countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, as well as the Canadian Government for supporting and promoting in various ways the irresponsible mining investments in Mesoamerica"" (Health Tribunal, 2012).",Grassroots Movements|Multi-Lateral Organizations,International Popular Health Tribunal|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,International Peoples Health Tribunal,Gold,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings, 2013 IACHR Hearing on Impact of Canadian Mining in Latin America,"On 1 November 2013, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held a hearing involving delegates from Honduras, Colombia, Peru, Chile and Brazil regarding the impacts of Canadian mining activities in the region, including testimony from the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC) on the San Martín mining project. The hearing was part of the Commission's 149th Regular Period of Sessions and focused on the responsibility of ""home states"" - that is, the originating states of mining corporations operating in Latin America, such as Canada. The delegates raised particular concerns ""about how Canadian government representatives have intervened in the creation or reform of laws in other countries without respect for what mining-affected communities have been calling for"" (MiningWatch Canada, 2013). Following the hearing, the Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America (a group comprised of seven NGOs) released a report stating that ""Canadian firms are exploiting weak legal systems in Latin American countries and Canada itself, as well as failing to respect indigenous peoples’ rights, international human rights and social responsibility principles, and supposedly 'protected' areas"" (Guardian, 2014).  ",Civil Society Organizations|Non-Governmental Organizations,Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC)|Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America,"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Inter-American System,Gold,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals, 2018 UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visit to Honduras,"In April and May 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders carried out a fact-finding country visit to Honduras. His preliminary report issued at the end of the visit, highlighted the threats faced by human rights activists, particularly environmental defenders, arising from their legitimate social demands. The rapporteur also identified conflicts arising from corporate mining projects as a key context in which defenders face threats and criminalization. For example, the rapporteur noted that: “Honduras has become one of the most dangerous places in the world for land rights defenders and environmental activists” (OHCHR, 2018; para. 41) and that “The practice of criminalizing the defence of human rights or threatening to do so is widespread, affecting in particular those who defend land, environmental and civil and political rights and those who report irregularities in State or business operations or violations committed by the Government or companies (ibid: para. 27). The Rapporteur also confirmed that he had received a great deal of information about the harmful repercussions of corporate operations, in particular those related to the mining, energy, agricultural, forestry, tourism and security sectors throughout the country, and such enterprises’ involvement in threats, attacks and abuse directed at human rights defenders, in some cases by security staff (ibid: para. 67).",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|International Organizations|State Institutions,UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders,"Tocoa, Colon",,Policy and Think Tank Reports,Honduras,United Nations System,Iron oxide,Central America,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to safety and personal integrity 2011 Administrative Appeal to declare Siria Valley a Health Emergency,"On 13 December 2011, the National Coalition of Environmental and Organisational Networks and the Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS) submitted an administrative appeal to the Ministry of Health, requesting that the area of Siria Valley be declared a health emergency, that the Ministry immediately attend to those affected by heavy metals, carry out new medical analyses and consider awarding damages. This request followed, among other things, the release by CAVS of a report prepared in 2006 by Dr. Juan Almendares and biologist Flaviano Bianchini, which demonstrated high levels of heavy metals in drinking water and blood samples from residents in the vicinity of the San Martín project, and a photo report prepared by a representative of CAVS documenting the health problems of local residents (photos taken in 2008).  Similar calls have were made by other organizations, such as the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC), which reported on human rights violations in the context of extractive projects in Honduras between 2010 and 2014. The organization's report recommended, among other things, that Siria Valley be declared a health emergency and that immediate medical attention be provided to residents impacted by environmental damage in the region.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,National Coalition of Environmental Networks of Honduras (CONROA)|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Honduran System,Gold,Central America,Administrative Proceedings, 2010 Ethics Tribunal on Border Mining [Cerro Blanco],"In November 2010, the first annual Ethics Tribunal was convened on the topic of Border Mining in Latin America. The Tribunal was held in Santiago, Chile, with a panel of judges drawn from leading individuals in the areas of human rights, trade unions, pastoral work, environmental defense, and indigenous rights. Organizers, including the Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts in Chile (OLCA), solicited complaints from institutions and communities interested in participating in the proceedings. Cerro Blanco was one of four border mining projects considered by the panel, which found, among other things, a lack of dialogue by companies and greater interest in private property and economic interests over common goods and environmental protection. The panel recommended, among other things, that affected communities prevent, through peaceful means, the approval of new laws that compromise their current and future well-being, including through alliances with civil society and pressuring competent authorities. The topics examined by the Ethics Tribunal vary from year to year. At the time of writing (September 2018), the most recent session was held in November 2017 on the topic of human trafficking.",Non-Profit Organization,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Campaigns,,Guatemala,Ethics Tribunal on Border Mining,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to access information|Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to due process 2012 IACHR hearing on the Human Rights of People Affected by Metallic Mining in El Salvador,"On 4 November 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held a hearing on the Human Rights of People Affected by Metallic Mining in El Salvador. The hearing was part of the Commission's 146th Regular Period of Sessions, and held at the request of El Salvador's Ombudsperson for the Defence of Human Rights (PDDH). The PDDH requested the hearing as a result of the Commission's interest in its submissions on the state of metallic mining during the previous year's session, and its request that El Salvador keep the Commission informed of the situation. The PDDH submitted a report on metallic mining and human rights in El Salvador, including its position on the Cerro Blanco transborder mining project. It expressed concern regarding the project's location on the Trifinio biosphere reserve and argued that, since its approval, ""the Cerro Blanco Mining Project has become a slow and certain threat to human life, vegetation, fauna, [and] water resources not only in the Republic of Guatemala, but rather in the Republic of El Salvador as well"" (PDDH, 2012). The PDDH also made oral submissions at the hearing, along with representatives from the Water Forum and the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining (Mesa Nacional). A video of the hearing is available in the IACHR reference below. Prior to the hearing, a panel discussion was held at the Consulate of El Salvador in Washington D.C., where the PDDH, together with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), presented on the implications of the Cerro Blanco mine in the border region of El Salvador and Guatemala. IPS is a think tank based in Washington D.C. ""dedicated to building a more equitable, ecologically sustainable, and peaceful society."" CISPES is a grassroots organization founded in 1980 that supports ""Salvadoran people’s struggle for social and economic justice."" In January 2013, the PDDH announced that it was seeking a ""special hearing"" at the IACHR focused on the Cerro Blanco mining project and the risk of heavy metal water contamination, indicating that it would request that the IACHR conduct a mediation between El Salvador and Guatemala the following March. In the meantime, the matter continued to be managed through diplomatic channels. Goldcorp Inc. ultimately suspended the project in July 2013, but has since sold it to Bluestone Resources Inc., which is in the process of finalizing its feasibility studies. At the time of writing (September 2018), no further developments have been reported on the request for a special hearing at or mediation by the IACHR on Cerro Blanco.",Civil Society Organizations|Grassroots Movements|State Institutions,Community in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)|El Salvador Ombudsperson for Human Rights|National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining in El Salvador (Mesa Nacional)|Water Forum,"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Press Conference and Public Statements,,Guatemala,Inter-American System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to water 1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Escobal],"The mining industry in Guatemala is governed by, among other things, theGeneral Mining Law. This law was initially passed in 1997, following a peace process that ended the 1960-1996 internal conflict. It was criticized by some Guatemalan civil society and legal groups for creating a low royalty rate of 1% and failing to establish a robust procedure relating to, among other things, the requirements for environmental impact assessments and consultation mechanisms for directly affected communities. Criticisms were also raised regarding inconsistencies between requirements under the Environmental Protection Law and the mining licence approval process under the General Mining Law. In 2006, draft amendments to the Mining Law were prepared by the Environmental Commission of Congress. Initially, the amendments contemplated prohibiting companies from submitting fragmented or partial environmental impact assessments that only reported on the impact of parts or phases of a project, rather than the project as a whole. This issue was raised in the context of the licence approval processes for the Cerro Blanco project and concerns that the environmental impact of the project was not adequately considered. However, the ultimate proposed reforms contained no language regarding these types of fragmented assessments. There was no contemplation of the requirements for environmental studies, other than that mitigation studies had to be presented but did not have to be approved for the licence to be considered. Further amendments were made in 2012/2013, following a four year moratorium on mining arising from a successful constitutional challenge in 2008. These amendments were part of a larger constitutional reform package and purported to allow the state to become a shareholder in all companies that extract natural resources. The proposed law was upheld by the Constitutional Court following a second constitutional challenge in 2012 relating to alleged violations of the right of indigenous peoples to prior consultation in regards to mining activities (see the Legal Action entitled, ""Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws"", for more detail). Also in 2012, the Guatemalan government entered into agreement with mining companies establishing a process for paying ""voluntary royalties"" above those required by law. In 2014, the Guatemalan government sought to increase the mandatory mining royalty rate from 1% to 10%. This increase was opposed by industry groups on the basis that it risked damaging Guatemala's attractiveness to investors from the extractive industry. The increase was further challenged at the Constitutional Court in an action brought by, among others, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations, the head of the Congressional Legislative Bloc of the National Unity of Hope party (UNE), the Chamber of Industry, and the mayor of the municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán in the department of San Marcos (the location of the Marlin Mine). The action was granted in September 2015, thereby declaring the royalty increase unconstitutional. As of 2016 the Constitutional Court recognised in various sentences the failure of the Mining Law to adequately guarantee certain rights, including the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities (see Legal Actions entitled “2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences” and “2005- Community Consultations Processes [Escobal]”. As a result of these sentences, there have been various legislative measures to reform or redraft the Mining Law. However, at the time of writing (September 2021), the Guatemalan Congress continued to deliberate on draft texts for a new mining law (BN Americas, 2021).",State Institutions,Congress of Guatemala|Energy and Mining Commission|Environmental Commission of Congress,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",Demonstrations,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2008-2018 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Escobal],"On 19 June 2008, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala declared seven provisions of the 1997 Mining Law unconstitutional based on a failure to comply with Guatemala's environmental laws. In particular, the court agreed with the Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS) that the following aspects of the Mining Law breached the state's obligation to protect the environment: (1) the implied approval of administrative inaction for longer than 30 days in response to Environmental Impact Assessments; (2) its permissiveness regarding the release of contaminated waters from mining activities; and (3) the Mining Law's requirement that companies mitigate waste and noise only to the ""extent possible"" (Abate and Aldana, 2015). This constitutional challenge arose from social conflict, environmental concerns, and lack of government engagement with community representatives in the approval and granting of licences for the Marlin Mine project (Human Rights House Foundation, 2012). However, the Court's findings applied broadly to all operations impacted by the impugned provisions of the 1997 Mining Law, including the Cerro Blanco project. Indeed, following this decision, the government instituted a moratorium on all new mining licences until amendments could be made to the Mining Law. The moratorium was lifted in 2012 following the introduction of legislative amendments by the Guatemalan government (See Legal Actionentitled ""Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Escobal]"", for more detail). In March 2012, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) filed a constitutional challenge to these amendments, arguing that the new law violated their rights as indigenous peoples to be consulted with respect to mining activities impacting their territories. The Constitutional Court released a decision upholding the mining law in 2013. Some groups considered this decision to be a reversal of a 2011 Constitutional Court decision declaring the consultation rights of indigenous peoples to be protected by the Guatemalan constitution. In response to the 2013 decision, the CPO filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (See ""2013 IACHR Petition filed by Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples [Escobal]"", for more detail). While the CPO represents Mayan indigenous communities, their legal actions at both the national and international level relate to indigenous rights more broadly, including those of the Xinka indigenous community in Guatemala. With respect to the Escobal project, Tahoe Resources Inc.long denied the presence of indigenous communities in the project area. The issue of indigenous consultation rights was addressed in September 2018 by the Constitutional Court, which rejected the company's position and confirmed a lower court decision suspending the Escobal mining licences, pending immediate consultation by the Ministry of Energy and Mines of local Xinka indigenous populations (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences"", for more detail).",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",Demonstrations,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2011-2018 Constitutional Challenge of Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Escobal],"On 23 March 2011, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) brought an action before the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a draft regulation, entitled ""Regulations regarding the Consultation Process under the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries"", which included a 30-day notice period from the date of publication for public comments and proposals on the draft provisions. Upon expiration of the 30-day notice period, the final version of the regulation would be issued. The CPO argued that the draft regulation violated, among other things, indigenous rights, consultation rights, and the principle of due process. The Court allowed the CPO's action, ordering the government to re-launch its regulatory initiative regarding consultation procedures for indigenous peoples through appropriate means. It further confirmed that the indigenous peoples' right to consultation is protected by the Guatemalan constitution. However, some critics argue that the 2013 Constitutional Courtdecision to dismissthe CPO's legal challenge toamendments to the General Mining Law effectively overturns the constitutional status of indigenous peoples right toconsultation(see the Legal Action, entitled ""2011-2018 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws"", for more detail). While the CPO represents Mayan Indigenous communities, their legal actions at both the national and international level relate to indigenous peoples' rights more broadly, including those of the Xinka indigenous community in Guatemala. With respect to the Escobal project, Tahoe Resourceslong denied the presence of indigenous communities in the project area. This issue was addressed in September 2018 by the Constitutional Court, which rejected the company's position and confirmed a lower court decision suspending the Escobal mining licences, pending immediate consultation by the Ministry of Energy and Mines with local Xinka indigenous populations.The Court also considered the general scope of indigenous peoples' rights to consultation. It appears that, despite concerns regarding the 2013 constitutional challenge described above, the Court confirmed the constitutional status of this right, along with its recognition ininternational law. However, the Court's rulingemphasized that the right to be consulted does not create veto rights. According to the Court, the nature of the right is to be consultative, not binding (consultiva y no vinculante). Its primary goal is to ensure involvement, participation, and information from affected communities through administrative or other methods (Constitutional Court, 2018, pp. 145-148, 153) (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2017-Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences"", for more detail).",Indigenous Organizations,Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",Awareness/Coalition Building,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2013 IACHR Petition filed by Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples [Escobal],"In September 2013, the Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples filed a petition against Guatemala before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for systemic violation of the collective rights of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. This petition was filed in response to the Constitutional Court's 2013 decision, dismissing an action brought by Guatemala’s Western Peoples’ Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO), which alleged that the 2012 amendments to the existing Mining Law violated indigenous rights to consultation in regards to mining activities on or impacting indigenous territories (see the Legal Action, entitled ""Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws"", for more detail). The petition states that Guatemala has violated the following collective human rights: (1) the rights to participation, consultation, and consent; (2) equality before the law; and (3) the right to access to justice. It requests that the IACHR, among other things, determine Guatemala's responsibilities in relation to the above rights, as enshired in the American Convention on Human Rights. While the petition is not limited to mining operations or the Cerro Blanco mine in particular, the action has important implications for these types of projects, which are often located on or impact indigenous territories. According to an interview conducted as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with a representative of the CPO, in 2015, the IACHR notified the Council that their petition had been assigned a file number. At the time of writing (September 2018), no further developments have been reported. Petitions filed at the IACHR are generally reviewed in chronological order and may take significant time before being considered. The role of the Commission is to investigate the situation and, where applicable, make recommendations to the subject state.",Indigenous Organizations,Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",Lobbying,,Guatemala,Inter-American System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2008-2013 Moratoriums on Metallic Mining [Escobal],"In 2008, the Government of Guatemala, then led by President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of the National Unity of Hope (UNE) party, instituted a moratorium on issuing new mining licences. This moratorium was triggered by a successful constitutional challenge in 2008 of the country's General Mining Law, which was raised in the context of opposition to the Marlin Mine. The moratorium was lifted in March 2013 when new amendments to the law (proposed to address the findings of the 2008 court challenge) were upheld by the Constitutional Court (See the Legal Action entitled ""Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws"", for more detail). In July 2013, a second moratorium on new mining licences was proposed by President Otto Pérez Molina, of the Patriotic Party (PP), in connection to conflicts and opposition relating to the Escobal mining project. The proposed moratorium was rejected by the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) as ""a political show intended to calm widespread resistance to harmful mining projects [...]"" (NISGUA, 2013). It noted that the government had already lifted the 2008 moratorium, allowing for ""the massive granting of unconsulted licences for mining in indigenous territories"" (ibid). The new moratorium would be ""contradictory because during the last year and a half the Executive has granted roughly 100 mineral mining licenses"" (ibid). At the time of the proposed moratorium, the Escobal project had already been approved and would not be affected by the proposal. Moreover, in the same month, Goldcorp Inc. announced the suspension of the Cerro Blanco project, meaning that it also would not be impacted by the proposed moratorium. Ultimately, it appears from reports that the moratorium was not implemented. This issue arose again in 2016 when the political party, Convergence, proposed a law providing for a five year moratorium on reconnaissance, exploration, and exploitation licences for metallic mining and hydroelectric activities. The proposal was rejected in August 2016 by the Congressional Committee of Energy and Mines. ",Politicians and/or Political Parties,Convergence (political party)|National Unity of Hope (UNE)|Patriotic Party (PP),"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",Demonstrations,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Executive Orders and Actions,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2005- Community Consultations Processes [Escobal],"Between 2005 and 2016, approximately 80 community consultations (consultas comunitarias), also known as popular consultations (consultas popularesorconsultas), were held across Guatemala, resulting in a large majority of citizens voting against mining and other commercial activities in their territories (Ardon, 2016). The ""consultamovement"" in Guatemala began in 2005 in response to a hydroelectric project in Río Hondo, Zacapa, and was quickly adopted by communities affected by the Marlin Mine (Laplante Nolin, 2014). Communities turned to theconsultaprocess as a democratic and peaceful mechanism for participating in decision making relating to projects affecting their communities (Guatemala Communitaria, 2016). The process is based on national laws, such as the Guatemalan Municipal Code, and the rights of consultation and participation enshrined in international instruments, such as the International Labour (ILO) Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ibid). In particular, the ILO Convention No. 169 requires that contracting states (including Guatemala) obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from affected indigenouscommunities before proceeding with commercial activities on or impacting their territories, and that the process for obtaining such consent should follow customary procedures of the communities(Walter and Urkidi, 2016). In some instances, for example,consultationsrelating to the Marlin Mine and Escobal projects, the process is also governed by indigenous law and community governance structures, and has been described as ""indigenous direct democracy"" (Abbott, 2014). According to Professor Shin Imai, ""[f]rom the Indigenous perspective, the authority and jurisdiction to act does not arise from Guatemalan legislation. The authority arises from the inherent rights that come with being an Indigenous people"" (Imai et al, 2007; 117). Some reports indicate that the Guatemalan government has ""made little effort to listen to the community’s concerns and decisions"" as expressed through theconsultaprocess and, in some instances, taken ""steps to limit the right of theconsulta"" (Abott, 2014). While the results of community consultation processes must be taken into account, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2016that they (consultas populares) are not binding on the government, nor do they grant veto powers to affected communities (Corte de Constitutionalidad, 2016). Nonetheless, indigenous and other community organizations have and continue to rely on legally recognized consultation and participation rights to challenge the validity of mining licences across the country. Notably, in April 2018, the Labour Commission of the Guatemalan Congress announced that it would begin analyzing a draft bill on proposed procedures for consultation with indigenous peoples. The same month, the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) announced that it had started an action before the Constitutional Court challenging this bill for, among other things, violating indigenous rights to consultation and self-determination. The group questions whether a formal law regulating indigenous consultations processes is necessary, noting that there are over 30 decisions of the Consitutional Court that establish that the non-existence of this type of law is not an obstacle for compliance with the right to consultation by state officials. With respect to the Escobal project, as of May 2017, six municipalities closest to the project had held community consultations, with the majority of voters opposing the mine. These municipalities are Nueva Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa de Lima, Casillas, Mataquescuintla, San Carlos Alzatate, and Jalapa (JCAP, 2017). According to a complaint filed by the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project (JCAP) with the British Columbia Securities Commission, ""[t]wo other plebiscites [community consultations] in municipalities outside of the immediate area of the pending concessions [also] resulted in votes against the mine"" (Ibid). JCAP further noted that, while ""Tahoe and its supporters brought at least four court cases to try to stop and invalidate these official votes"", the communities' right to hold these consultations was upheld by the Constitutional Court (JCAP). (See the Legal Action entitled ""Complaints to Canadian Securities Regulators"", for more information regarding JCAP's complaint). Note also that, in September 2018, the Constitutional Court considered the general scope of indigenous peoples' rights to consultation in a case involving the suspension of mining licences for the Escobal project. In its decision, the court appears to confirm the constitutional status of this right, along with its recognition ininternational law; however, its rulingalso emphasized that the right to be consulted does not create veto rights. The nature of the right is to be consultative, not binding (consultiva y no vinculante). According to the court, its primary goal is to ensure involvement, participation, and information foraffected communities through administrative or other methods (Constitutional Court, 2018, pp. 145-148, 153) (See the Legal Action entitled ""2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences"", for more detail).",Indigenous Organizations,various community and indigenous organizations|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO)|Xinka Parliament,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Environmental Impact Assessment,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to self-determination" 2010 ILO Criticizes Guatemala on Mining and Indigenous Communities [Escobal],"In 2010, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) released a report criticizing Guatemala for, despite earlier comments made in 2005, 2006, and 2007, continuing to issue mining licences without consultation with indigenous communities and for failing to compensate indigenous communities for damages sustained or ""make efforts to reduce the impact of exploitation"". The Committee requested ""the Government to neither grant nor renew any licence for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources as referred to in Article 15 of the Convention while the participation and consultation provided for by the Convention are not being carried out, and to provide information in this regard.""  These findings were made in relation to the Committee's assessment of Guatemala's obligations under the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. The Committee received comments on this issue from ""the Union Movement, Guatemalan Indigenous and Agricultural Workers for the Defence of Workers’ Rights, of which the General Confederation of Workers of Guatemala (CGTG) forms a part, the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (CUSG), the National Trade Union and Peoples’ Coordinating Body (CNSP), the National Federation of Trade Unions of Public Employees of Guatemala (FENASTEG), the Trade Union Federation of Farm Workers (FESOC), the Trade Union of Health Workers of Guatemala, the Eastern Distribution Workers’ Union and the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (UNSITRAGUA)"" (ILO Report, 2010). The CEACR has continued to review Guatemala's compliance and issued recommendations for consultation processes with Indigenous peoples and reform of mining legislation in order to comply with the provisions of Convention No. 169.",Multi-Lateral Organizations,International Labour Organization,,,Non-Governmental Reports,,United Nations System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to self-determination|Right to territory" 2013-2019 Complaints to Canadian Securities Regulators,"In May 2013, the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project (JCAP) filed a complaint against Tahoe Resources Inc. at the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), requesting that the OSC investigate whether Tahoe had complied with its obligations under the Ontario Securities Act to disclose all material changes ""forthwith"", including information relating to opposition and social conflict surrounding the Escobal mine and the impact of these events on the mine's operation and share valuation. JCAP filed this complaint on behalf of MiningWatch Canada, which supported the Committee in Defence of Life and Peace in San Rafael Las Flores, Guatemala in their conflict with Tahoe. A similar complaint was filed with the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) in May 2017 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission in August 2016 (see ""Complaint to U.S. Securities Regulators"" for more detail). The BCSC Complaint was filed on behalf of  Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA), the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network, MiningWatch Canada, and the Network in Solidarity with Guatemala (NISGUA). In 2019, JCAP filed another complaint with the British Columbia Securities Commission regarding Tahoe Resources' failure to disclose full and accurate information in relation to the Escobal mine prior to the shareholder vote by Pan American Silver to purchase Tahoe Resources. The JCAP has never received a response from British Columbia Securities Commission to its various complaints, which ""speaks to the weak regulatory environment that mining companies rely upon when they choose to incorporate in Canada."" (Imai and Ross, 2020; 17) However, media coverage of the complaints played an important role in questioning the manner in which Tahoe Resources provided accurate information to shareholders and investment authorities in relation to the prospects of the Escobal mine. JCAP is ""a volunteer-driven transnational, collaborative, community-based legal clinic"" based in Canada that ""offer[s] legal knowledge to communities that are negatively affected by natural resource extraction."" See ""Complaint to U.S. Securities Regulators"" for information regarding a similar complaint brought by JCAP in the U.S.",Grassroots Movements|Non-Governmental Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|Religious Organizations,Committee in Defence of Life and Peace in San Rafael Las Flores|Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network|MiningWatch Canada|Network in Solidarity with Guatemala (NISGUA)|Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA)  ,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Guatemala,Canadian System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to due process 2016 Complaint to U.S. Securities Regulators,"In August 2016, the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project (JCAP) filed a complaint against Tahoe Resources Inc. at the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), requesting (among other things) that the SEC investigate whether Tahoe ""failed to meet legal requirements for disclosing human rights abuses and failed to disclose lawsuits that impact the Escobal mine"" (NISGUA, 2016). The request was filed on behalf of Network in Solidarity with Guatemala (NISGUA) and Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA). The SEC did not respond to the JCAP's request. JCAP is ""a volunteer-driven transnational, collaborative, community-based legal clinic"" based in Canada that ""offer[s] legal knowledge to communities that are negatively affected by natural resource extraction."" See also Legal Action entitled,""2013-2019 Complaints to Canadian Securities Regulators"" for information regarding similar complaints brought by JCAP in Canada.",Non-Governmental Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|Religious Organizations,Justice and Corporate Accountability Project (JCAP)|Network in Solidarity with Guatemala (NISGUA)|Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA)  ,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Guatemala,U.S. System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings, 2014-2019 Canadian Lawsuit against Tahoe Resources,"In June 2014, seven plaintiffs commenced a civil lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada against Tahoe Resources Inc. for injuries arising from the alleged conduct of private security personnel employed at Escobal mine. In particular, on 27 April 2013, a protest was held outside the gates of Escobal. The plaintiffs ""allege[d] that security guards opened the mine gates and “opened fire on the protestors using weapons that included shotguns, pepper spray, buckshot and rubber bullets” (BCCA, 2017). In 2015, Tahoe brought a motion requesting that the proceedings in British Columbia be stayed on the basis that Guatemala was the more appropriate forum for adjudicating these claims. This position was accepted by the British Columbia Supreme Court, but overturned by the Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Court found that the motion judge had erred in finding that Guatemala was ""clearly"" more appropriate. The Court considered the following three factors in overturning this decision: (1) the ""limited discovery procedures available to the [plaintiffs] in Guatemala""; (2) ""the marked uncertainty as to how the expiration of the limitation period will be treated by Guatemalan courts""; and (3) ""the real risk that the [plaintiffs] will not obtain justice in Guatemala given the context of the dispute and the evidence of endemic corruption in the Guatemalan judiciary"" (Ibid.). Tahoe's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was declined; therefore, the action was allowed to proceed to the trial stage in British Columbia. However, in 2019, after Pan-American Silver purchased Tahoe Resources and Minera San Rafael, the new mine owner made an out-of-court settlement with the four remaining Guatemalan plaintiffs to resolve the case. The terms of the settlement were confidential.",Company(ies)|Non-Governmental Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations,"Amnesty International|Canadian Centre for International Justice|Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Community Representatives|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Tahoe Resources Inc.","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,,Guatemala,Canadian System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Civil Lawsuits,Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity 2013- Criminal prosecution of Former Head of Security and other security guards at Escobal mine and compensation claim against Tahoe Resources,"In May 2013, the former head of security for Escobal mine, Alberto Rotondo, was placed under house arrest in connection with criminal charges linking him to ""an April [2013] shooting that left six injured outside Tahoe Resources’ mine in southeastern Guatemala (MiningWatch Canada, 2017). The charges included assault, aggravated assault, and obstruction justice. No charges were brought against Tahoe Resources Inc. or its, Minera San Rafael S.A., in connection with the shootings (Garcia, 2017). Those injured were local community members who were participating in a protest against the mine (La Prensa, 2016). In June 2014, they filed a lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada, against Tahoe for injuries relating to the above shooting. According to the evidence submitted in these proceedings, Mr. Rotondo was placed under house arrest pending trial. In November 2015, it was discovered that he had fled to Peru, where he was ultimately arrested and again placed under house arrest. As of 2017, Guatemala was seeking extradiction of Mr. Rotondo. No evidence was provided in the Canadian proceedings regarding the expected timelines for this process. Mr. Rotondo's trial in Guatemala has, in the meantime, been suspended (Ibid). In June 2017, a Guatemalan criminal court found six officers of the National Civil Police (PNC) guilty of criminal charges in connection with Mr. Rotondo's escape. According to reports, ""all six officers were found guilty of breach of duty and sentenced to three years in prison each; four of the six were also sentenced to an additional three years for culpable negligence that allowed for Rotondo’s escape"" (NISGUA, 2017). In November 2018, the Peruvian state authorised the extradition of Alberto Rotondo to Guatemala, but at the time of writing this had not taken place. In July 2019, Pan American Silver made an out of court settlement with the remaining four Guatemalan plaintiffs who had sought compensation from the company in relation to their injuries suffered as a result of police attack on the peaceful protest outside the Escobal mine in 2013. Pan American Silver made an apology but the details of the settlement remained confidential.",State Institutions,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Human Rights Public Prosecutor|National Civil Police|Special Prosecutor’s Office on Attacks Against Human Rights Defenders,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights|Right to due process|Right to life|Right to safety and personal integrity 2012-2013 Tahoe Lawsuit against Guatemalan Government,"In June 2012, Minera San Rafael, S.A., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tahoe Resources Inc., commenced a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court of Guatemala alleging that ""community protests had 'impeded its work,' including the construction of an electrical transmission line through a road allowance in the neighbouring municipality of Mataquescuintla. The lawsuit named the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of National Defence, Director of the National Police, Commissioner of the National Police in the Department of Jalapa, and the Commissioner of National Police in the Department of Santa Rosa. It accused them of failing in their duties to protect the mine"" (JCAP, 2017). The Court dismissed the lawsuit in February 2013, finding that that government had acted within its legal capacities, having provided security and strategic contingency plans to ensure order and security within the region.",Company(ies)|Politicians and/or Political Parties|State Institutions,"Commissioner of National Police in the Department of Santa Rosa|Director of the National Police, Commissioner of the National Police in Department of Jalapa|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Ministry of National Defence|Ministry of the Interior|Republic of Guatemala|Tahoe Resources Inc.","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Company Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings, 2013 State of Siege and Criminalization of Protestors and Community Leaders,"In May 2013, the government of Guatemala declared a temporary ""state of siege"", deploying 8,500 police and soldiers in the municipality of San Rafael Las Flores (where Escobal is located) and the surrounding municipalities of Mataquescuintla, Casillas, and Jalapa, each of which voted against mining in community consultations (consultas). The state of siege followed the arrest of 26 peaceful protesters in April 2013. This conduct was criticized by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), which noted that environmental protests in Guatemala had triggered criminal proceedings against protesters, including charges of terrorism and criminal conspiracy, adding that the charges were disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged offences and were often dismissed in court due to a lack of evidence (JCAP, 2017).  In April 2013, the National Security Commission categorised Escobal mine as a “strategic natural resource”. This had the effect of converting the social unrest in communities around the mining project into a national security issue. This was used to justify the ""state of siege"", military deployments and also the creation of an Inter-institutional Commission for Integrated Development in San Rafael Las Flores. This merged security and development issues and was led by an army general. The Commission office reportedly carried out military intelligence activities in the region, particularly in relation to communities in opposition to the mine (Solano, 2015).",Grassroots Movements|Politicians and/or Political Parties,Guatemalan Government|President Otto Pérez Molina|Various Community and Social Organizations,"San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to defend rights 2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences,"On 5 July 2017, Guatemala's Supreme Court of Justice temporarily suspended two of Tahoe Resources Inc.'s mining licences pending resolution of a constitutional challenge (amparo) filed against the Ministry of Energy and Mines for discrimination and lack of consultation with indigenous Xinka communities prior to issuing the mining licences for the El Escobal mining project in 2013 (See also the Legal Action entitled ""2013 Injunction against granting of Escobal exploitation licence"" for more detail). Tahoe continuously denied the presence of Xinka peoples in the mining area. An appeal against the suspension was filed by the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial, and Financial Associations (CACIF), resulting in the reinstatement of the licences in September 2017. As part of the reinstatement, the Ministry of Energy and Mines was ordered to carry out a consultation with affected Xinka indigenous communities and report on the consultation within 12 months of the decision. The above decision was then appealed to Guatemala's highest court, the Constitutional Court, by the Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS), which was also involved at the earlier stages of this constitutional challenge. In March 2018, the Constitutional Court requested more evidence, including ordering researchers at two Guatemalan Universities, as well as the Ministry of Culture and Sport, to conduct ""an anthropological study regarding the presence of Indigenous people in the municipality of San Rafael Las Flores"" (MiningWatch Canada, 2018). In September 2018, the Constitutional Court issued a 500+ page ruling confirming the suspension of Tahoe's mining licences pending the completion of consultation processes by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) with impacted Xinka Indigenous communities. The Court ruling recognised the presence Xinka communities in the area affected by the mine, the failure to conduct consultation with Xinka communities in line with criteria of International Labour Convention 169. The Court also recognised some inadequacies of the Environmental Impact Assessment, and ordered MARN to review certain aspects. The court recognised the validity of municipal consultation votes (See Legal Action entitled, ""2005- Community Consultations Processes [Escobal]"") but confirmed earlier court rulings that provisions of the Municipal Code which provided for local consultations were only advisory for national authorities, such asMEM. It concludedsuch local consultations under the Municipal Codewere not in accordance with the obligation toguaranteetherightof indigenous peoples to consultation. This obligation fell to national authorities, in this caseMEM,to carry out a consultation proces in line with the criteria of International Labour Convention 169 on the right to free, prior and informed consent. The court ordered that the consultationbe carried out by MEM immediately on the basis of a Court's guide which was elaborated fromthe criteria of the ILO Convention and the Inter American System of Human Rights. This included the requirement to conducta pre-consultation phase of dialogue between representatives of affected Xinkacommunities, MEM and other institutions regarding the implementation of the consultation process. The court stipulated that “The Xinka people, according to their own selection process, can participate by means of the authorities of the Xinka parliament or choose their representatives according to their own customs, institutions and traditions” (Corte de Constitucionalidad, 2018;515). However, the Court did not provide a timeline for the completion of these consultations. In a press release, dated 4 September 2018, the Tahoe Resourcesadvised that itwould reviewthe ruling. NGOs supporting the communities reported that, while the court's decision was welcome, ""community leaders fear repressive tactics against environmental defenders will persist as long as the company stays in the area and refuses to respect local decisions against any mining"" (Earthworks, 2018). In March 2019, the Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsperson's Office (PDH) opened a administrative process to monitor the implementation of the 2018 Constitutional Court against the MEM. In April 2021, the PDH published its report on the monitoring process setting a number of recommendations to MEM, particularly in relation to ensuring the integrity of the pre-consultation phase of the consulation. For more information on implementation consultation process, see Legal Action entitled, “2020- Guatemalan Government and the Xinka Parliament initiate pre-consultation over Escobal”",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|Municipal Institutions|Religious Organizations|State Institutions,"Atlas Mining & Construction, S.A.|Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Coordinating Commitee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial, and Financial Associations (CACIF)|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|Municipality of Mataquescuintla|Solidarity Association of Minera San Rafael and Associated Companies Employees (ASEMIS)|Tahoe Resources Inc.|Xinka Parliament Association of Guatemala","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Non-Governmental Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2013 Injunction filed against granting of Escobal exploitation licence,"In April 2013, the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) granted Tahoe Resources, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Minera San Rafael,mining licences in relation to the Escobal mining project. Members of the Xinka indigenous community, as well as other affected residents, had opposed the company's application for mining licences since November 2010. In 2012 and 2013,more than 250 administrative complaints against the project were filed with MEM, citing (among other issues) environmental and consultation concerns. Immediately prior to MEM's decision tograntthe licences, the complainants were informedthat their concerns would not be considered. As a result, in May 2013, a representative of the Xinka Parliament, with the support of Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS), filedan injunction petition (amparo)to reverse MEM's decision to grant the licences. The injunction petitionwas also supported by the Xinka Parliament as a whole, the San Rafael Las Flores Committee in Defense of Lifeand Peace, and the Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA). The appellant claimed there was a ""lack of due process regarding a complaint he filed against the company’s license"" prior to the April 2013 MEM approval(NISGUA, 2013), and referred to hundreds of other complaints filed by members of the community that MEM had rejected. In July 2013, the Civil and Mercantile Division of Guatemala’s First Court of Appeals granted the injuction against the decision of the Director of Miningof MEM, ""putting the legality of the Escobal exploitation license in question"" (NISGUA, 2015). Minera San Rafael unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the Constitutional Court, sustaining the lower court's ruling that the MEM process granting the licence violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The Constitutional Court rulingrecognized the fundamental nature of the right to a healthy environment, drawing on international instruments, such as the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights on the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (""Protocol of San Salvador""), to interpret MEM's obligations under Guatemala'sGeneral Mining Law(Constitutional Court, 2015). However, the injunction ruling which invalidated the decision to grantthe mining licenceswas never enforced. MEMand Tahoe Resources argued the ruling was solely against the Director of Mining, rather than the decision itself and the Public Prosecutor's Office took no measures against MEM officials for failure to comply with the Constitutional Court ruling. Prior to the appeals courtgranting the injunction in 2013, CALAS also ""filed criminal complaints against former Minister of [MEM], Erick Archila, and former mines director at MEM, Fernando Castellanos"" (NISGUA, 2015). The complaints ""accus[ed] Archila and Castellanos of violating the Constitution and for breach of duty for having granted Tahoe Resources an exploitation license for the Escobal project without adequate consideration of more than 250 community complaints against the project"" (Ibid). CALAS also ""called on the UN-backed International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) to fully investigate the Escobal licensing process, citing Archila’s possible involvement in influence trafficking and illicit enrichment"" (Ibid). Despite these serious allegations, the authorities did not conduct a substantive investigation into the licencing process of Escobal mine or enforce the judicial injunction. For details relating to other legal actions impacting the status of the Escobal mining licences, see the Legal Actionentitled ""2017- Judicial Suspension of Tahoe's Mining Licences"".",Company(ies)|Grassroots Movements|Religious Organizations|State Institutions,"Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Minera San Rafael, S.A.|Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM)|San Rafael Las Flores Committee in Defense of Life and Peace|Santa Rosa Diocese Council for the Defence of Nature (CODIDENA)  |Tahoe Resources Inc.|Xinka Parliament Association of Guatemala","San Rafael Las Flores and Jalapa, Santa Rosa",,Scientific or Expert Reports,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Lead|Silver|Zinc,Central America,Civil Lawsuits,"Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to self-determination" 2014 Permanent Peoples' Tribunal hearing on Canadian mining in Latin America,"In December 2014, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal released its verdict on hearings held over four days in May/June 2014 into Canadian mining in Latin America. With respect to the Escobal mine, the Tribunal found that Tahoe Resources Inc. and its subsidiary, Minera San Rafael, violated the rights of communities affected by the mine in Santa Rosa and Jalapa departments. Two witnesses from the Committee in Defence of Life and Peace of San Rafael Las Flores presented evidence to the Tribunal of the “violence, repression and criminalisation committed against individuals opposed to the mine” as well as the failure to recognise Xinka community organised consultations rejecting the mine. The Tribunal issued a series of recommendations to the companies and the host governments of Guatemala and Canada to respect the rights to self-determination of the Xinka people and end the abuses against those opposing the mine. Neither the companies nor the host governments responded to the verdict and recommendations of the Permanent People’s Tribunal",Civil Society Organizations|Non-Governmental Organizations,Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC)|Oxfam America|Siria Valley Environmental Committee (CAVS)|The Quebec Network of Environmental Groups (RSGE),"San Ignacio (Siria Valley), Francisco Morazán",,,Honduras,Permanent Peoples Tribunal,Gold,Central America,Popular Tribunal Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to defend rights|Right to free, prior and informed consent|Right to safety and personal integrity|Right to self-determination" 1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws and Amendments [Cerro Blanco],"The mining industry in Guatemala is governed by, among other things, the General Mining Law. This law was initially passed in 1997, following a peace process that ended the 1960-1996 internal conflict. It was criticized by some Guatemalan civil society and legal groups for creating a low royalty rate of 1% and failing to establish a robust procedure relating to, among other things, the requirements for environmental impact assessments and consultation mechanisms for directly affected communities. Criticisms were also raised regarding inconsistencies between requirements under the Environmental Protection Law and the mining licence approval process under the General Mining Law (Ardon, 2017). In 2006, draft amendments to the Mining Law were prepared by the Environmental Commission of Congress. Initially, the amendments contemplated prohibiting companies from submitting fragmented or partial environmental impact assessments that only reported on the impact of parts or phases of a project, rather than the project as a whole. This issue was raised in the context of the licence approval processes for the Cerro Blanco project and concerns that the environmental impact of the project was not adequately considered. However, the ultimate proposed reforms contained no language regarding these types of fragmented assessments. There was no contemplation of the requirements for environmental studies, other than that mitigation studies had to be presented but did not have to be approved for the licence to be considered (Ibid). Further amendments were made in 2012/2013, following a four year moratorium on mining arising from a successful constitutional challenge in 2008. These amendments were part of a larger constitutional reform package and purported to allow the state to become a shareholder in all companies that extract natural resources. The proposed law was upheld by the Constitutional Court following a second constitutional challenge in 2012 relating to alleged violations of the right of Indigenous peoples to prior consultation in regards to mining activities (see the Legal Action titled, ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Cerro Blanco]"", for more detail). Also in 2012, the Guatemalan government entered into agreement with mining companies establishing a process for paying ""voluntary royalties"" above those required by law (Plaza Pública, 2012). In 2014, the Guatemalan government sought to increase the mandatory mining royalty rate from 1% to 10%. This increase was opposed by industry groups on the basis that it risked damaging Guatemala's attractiveness to investors from the extractive industry. The increase was further challenged at the Constitutional Court in action brought by, among others, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations, the head of the Congressional Legislative Bloc of the National Unity of Hope party (UNE), the Chamber of Industry, and the mayor of the municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán in the department of San Marcos (the location of the Marlin Mine). The action was granted in September 2015, thereby declaring the royalty increase unconstitutional (Constitutional Court, 2015).",State Institutions,Congress of Guatemala|Energy and Mining Commission|Environmental Commission of Congress,"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Demonstrations,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,National Legislative Activities and Procedures, 2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Cerro Blanco],"On 19 June 2008, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala declared seven provisions of the 1997 Mining Law unconstitutional based on a failure to comply with Guatemala's environmental laws. In particular, the court agreed with the Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS) that the following aspects of the Mining Law breached the state's obligation to protect the environment: (1) the implied approval of administrative inaction for longer than 30 days in response to Environmental Impact Assessments; (2) its permissiveness regarding the release of contaminated waters from mining activities; and (3) the Mining Law's requirement that companies mitigate waste and noise only to the ""extent possible"" (Abate and Aldana, 2015). This constitutional challenge arose from social conflict, environmental concerns, and lack of government engagement with community representatives in the approval and granting of licences for the Marlin Mine project (Human Rights House Foundation, 2012). However, the Court's findings applied broadly to all operations impacted by the impugned provisions of the 1997 Mining Law, including the Cerro Blanco project. Indeed, following this decision, the government instituted a moratorium on all new mining licences until amendments could be made to the Mining Law. The moratorium was lifted in 2012 following the introduction of legislative amendments by the Guatemalan government (see Legal Action, titled ""1997-2015 Guatemalan Mining Laws [Cerro Blanco]"", for more detail). In March 2012, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) filed a constitutional challenge of these amendments, arguing that the new law violated their rights as indigenous peoples to be consulted with respect to mining activities impacting their territories. The Constitutional Court released a decision upholding the mining law in 2013. Some groups consider this decision to be a reversal of a 2011 Constitutional Court decision declaring the consultation rights of indigenous peoples to be protected by the Guatemalan constitution (see ""2011-2018 Constitutional Challenge of Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Cerro Blanco]"" for more detail). In response to the 2013 decision, the CPO filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (see ""Complaint over Mining Law at IACHR [Cerro Blanco]"" for more detail). While the CPO represents Mayan Indigenous communities, their legal actions at both the national and international level relate to indigenous rights more broadly, including those of the Xinka Indigenous community in Guatemala. With respect to the Cerro Blanco project site, the current owner, Bluestone Resources Inc., claims that there are no indigenous communities in Asunción Mita. However, according to an interview conducted as part of the Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with the Asunción Mita Neighbours Association for the Defence of Life, Water, and Nature (Avedevida), there are members of the Xinka indigenous community living in Asunción Mita, though they are not believed to be a large portion of the population.",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Centre for Environmental and Socio-Legal Action (CALAS)|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Lobbying,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process 2011-2018 Constitutional Challenge of Draft Regulation on Indigenous Consultation Processes [Cerro Blanco],"On 23 March 2011,  Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) brought an action before the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a draft regulation, entitled ""Regulations regarding the Consultation Process under the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries"", which included a 30-day notice period from the date of publication for public comments and proposals on the draft provisions. Upon expiration of the 30-day notice period, the final version of the regulation would be issued. The CPO argued that the draft regulation violated, among other things, indigenous rights, consultation rights, and the principle of due process. The Court allowed the CPO's action, ordering the government to re-launch its regulatory initiative regarding consultation procedures for indigenous peoples through appropriate means. It further confirmed that the indigenous right to consultation is protected by the Guatemalan constitution. However, some critics argue that the Constitutional Court's dismissal in 2013 of the CPO's challenge of amendments to the General Mining Law effectively overturns the constitutional status of indigenous consultation rights (see the Legal Action, entitled ""Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Cerro Blanco]"", for more detail). While the CPO represents Mayan Indigenous communities, their legal actions at both the national and international level relate to indigenous rights more broaldy, including those of the Xinka Indigenous community in Guatemala. With respect to the Cerro Blanco project site, the current owner, Bluestone Resources Inc., claims that there are no indigenous communities in Asunción Mita. However, according to an interview conducted as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with the Asunción Mita Neighbours Association for the Defence of Life, Water, and Nature (Avedevida), there are members of the Xinka indigenous community living in Asunción Mita, though they are not believed to be a large portion of the population. Moreover, while the Court's decision was not limited to mining operations or the Cerro Blanco mine, the decision had important implications for extractive industries in general, whose projects are often located on or impact indigenous territories. (See the Legal Action, entitled ""Community Consultations Processes and Mining Opposition [Cerro Blanco]"" for related information). Note, in September 2018, the issue of indigenous rights to consultation was again considered by the Constitutional Court in a case arising from the suspension of mining licences for the Escobal project. In this decision, the court considered the general scope of indigenous peoples' rights to consultation. It appears that, despite concerns regarding the 2013 constitutional challenge described above, the court confirmed the constitutional status of this right, along with its recognition in international law. However, it also emphasized that the right to be consulted does not create veto rights. The nature of the right is to be consultative, not binding (consultiva y no vinculante). Its primary goal is to ensure the involvement, participation, and gathering of information from affected communities through administrative or other methods (Constitutional Court, 2018, pp. 145-148, 153).",Indigenous Organizations|Non-Profit Organizations|State Institutions,Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Lobbying,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Constitutional Proceedings,Right to consultation 2013- IACHR Petition filed by Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples [Cerro Blanco],"In September 2013, the Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples filed a petition against Guatemala before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for systemic violation of the collective rights of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. This petition was filed in response to the Constitutional Court's 2013 decision, dismissing an action brought by Guatemala’s Western Peoples’ Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO), which alleged that the 2012 amendments to the existing Mining Law violated indigenous rights to consultation in regards to mining activities on or impacting indigenous territories (see the Legal Action entitled ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws [Cerro Blanco]"", for more detail). The petition states that Guatemala has violated the following collective human rights: (1) the rights to participation, consultation, and consent; (2) equality before the law; and (3) the right to access to justice. It requests that the IACHR, among other things, determine Guatemala's responsibilities in relation to the above rights, as enshired in the American Convention on Human Rights. While the petition is not limited to mining operations or the Cerro Blanco mine in particular, the action has important implications for these types of projects, which are often located on or impact indigenous territories. According to an interview conducted as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with a representative of the CPO, in 2015, the IACHR notified the Council that their petition had been assigned a file number. At the time of writing (September 2018), no further developments have been reported. Petitions filed at the IACHR are generally reviewed in chronological order and may take significant time before being considered. The role of the Commission is to investigate the situation and, where applicable, make recommendations to the subject state.",Indigenous Organizations,Council of Mayan and Xinka Peoples|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Lobbying,,Guatemala,Inter-American System,Gold|Silver,Central America,International and Regional Tribunals,"Right to consultation|Right to due process|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2008- Moratoriums on Metallic Mining [Cerro Blanco],"In 2008, the Government of Guatemala, then led by President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of the National Unity of Hope (UNE) party, instituted a moratorium on issuing new mining licences. This moratorium was triggered by a successful constitutional challenge in 2008 of the country's General Mining Law, which was raised in the context of opposition to the Marlin Mine. The moratorium was lifted in March 2013 when new amendements to the law (proposed to address the findings of the 2008 court challenge) were uphled by the Constitutional Court (See the Legal Action, entitled ""2008-2013 Constitutional Challenges against Guatemalan Mining Laws Cerro Blanco]"", for more detail). In July 2013, a second moratorium on new mining licences was proposed by President Otto Pérez Molina, of the Patriotic Party (PP), in connection to conflicts and opposition relating to the Escobal mining project. The proposed moratorium was rejected by the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) as ""a political show intended to calm widespread resistance to harmful mining projects [...]"" (NISGUA, 2013). It noted that the government had already lifted the 2008 moratorium, allowing for ""the massive granting of unconsulted licences for mining in indigenous territories"" (ibid). The new moratorium would be ""contradictory because during the last year and a half the Executive has granted roughly 100 mineral mining licenses"" (ibid). At the time of the proposed moratorium, the Escobal project had already been approved and would not be affected by the proposal. Moreover, in the same month, Goldcorp Inc. announced the suspension of the Cerro Blanco project, meaning that it also would not be impacted by the proposed moratorium. Ultimately, it appears from reports that the moratorium was not implemented. This issue arose again in 2016 when the political party, Convergence, proposed a law providing for a five year moratorium on reconnaissance, exploration, and exploitation licences for metallic mining and hydroelectric activities. The proposal was rejected in August 2016 by the Congressional Committee of Energy and Mines.",Politicians and/or Political Parties,Convergence (political party)|National Unity of Hope (UNE)|Patriotic Party (PP),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Demonstrations,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Executive Orders and Actions,Right to a healthy environment|Right to consultation|Right to due process 2005- Community Consultation Processes [Cerro Blanco],"Between 2005 and 2016, approximately 80 community consultations (consultas comunitarias), also known as popular consultations (consultas populares or consultas), were held across Guatemala, resulting in a large majority of citizens voting against mining and other commercial activities in their territories (Ardon, 2016). The ""consulta movement"" in Guatemala began in 2005 in response to a hydroelectric project in Río Hondo, Zacapa, and was quickly adopted by communities affected by the Marlin Mine (Laplante Nolin, 2014). Communities turned to the consulta process as a democratic and peaceful mechanism for participating in decision making relating to projects affecting their communities (Guatemala Communitaria, 2016). The process is based on national laws, such as the Guatemalan Municipal Code, and the rights of consultation and participation enshrined in international instruments, such as the International Labour (ILO) Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ibid). In particular, the ILO Convention No. 169 requires that contracting states (including Guatemala) obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from affected communities before proceeding with commercial activities on or impacting their territories, and that the process for obtaining such consent should follow customary procedures (Walter and Urkidi, 2016). In some instances, for example, consultas relating to the Marlin Mine and Escobal projects, the process is also governed by indigenous law and community governance structures, and has been described as ""indigenous direct democracy"" (Imai, 2007; Abott, 2014; NISGUA, 2016). According to Professor Shin Imai, ""[f]rom the Indigenous perspective, the authority and jurisdiction to act does not arise from Guatemalan legislation. The authority arises from the inherent rights that come with being an Indigenous people"" (Imai, 2007). Some reports indicate that the Guatemalan government has ""made little effort to listen to the community’s concerns and decisions"" as expressed through the consulta process and, in some instances, taken ""steps to limit the right of the consulta"" (Abott, 2014). While the results of community consultation processes must be taken into account, the Constitutional Court recently confirmed that they (consultas populares) are not binding on the government, nor do they grant veto powers to affected communities (Corte de Constitutionalidad, 2016). Nonetheless, indigenous and other community organizations have and continue to rely on legally recognized consultation and participation rights to challenge the validity of mining licences across the country. Notably, in April 2018, the Labour Commission of the Guatemalan Congress announced that it would begin analyzing a draft bill on proposed procedures for consultation with indigenous peoples. The same month, the Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO) announced that it had started an action before the Constitutional Court challenging this bill for, among other things, violating indigenous rights to consultation and self-determination. The group questions whether a formal law regulating indigenous consultations processes is necessary, noting that there are over 30 decisions of the Consitutional Court that establish that the non-existence of this type of law is not an obstacle for compliance with the right to consultation by state officials. At the time of writing (September 2018), no new developments on this case have been reported. With respect to the Cerro Blanco project, the first community consultation in the department of Jutiapa (where the project is located) was held in 2016 - three years after Goldcorp Inc. had suspended the project. The community consultation was held in the municipality of Quesada, in which 99% of participants voted against the mining project in the area. The project has since been sold to Bluestone Resources Inc., which is in the process of completing its feasibility studies. The company states that ""there are no indigenous groups living around the [Cerro Blanco] project"", relying on this position to argue that the political risk for its project is lower than that of similar projects, such as Escobal. However, according to an interview conducted as part of The Legal Cultures of the Subsoil project with the Asunción Mita Neighbours Association for the Defence of Life, Water, and Nature (Avedevida), there are members of the Xinka Indigenous community living in Asunción Mita, though they are not believed to be a large portion of the population.",Indigenous Organizations,various community and indigenous organizations|Western Peoples' Council of Mayan Organizations (CPO)|Xinka Parliament,"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Lobbying,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Popular Consultations and/or Referendum,Right to consultation 2010 ILO Criticizes Guatemala on Mining and Indigenous Communities [Cerro Blanco],"In 2010, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) released a report criticizing Guatemala for, despite earlier comments made in 2005, 2006, and 2007, continuing to issue mining licences without consultation with indigenous communities and for failing to compensate indigenous communities for damages sustained or ""make efforts to reduce the impact of exploitation"". The Committee requested ""the Government to neither grant nor renew any licence for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources as referred to in Article 15 of the Convention while the participation and consultation provided for by the Convention are not being carried out, and to provide information in this regard."" These findings were made in relation to the Committee's assessment of Guatemala's obligations under the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. The Committee received comments on this issue from ""the Union Movement, Guatemalan Indigenous and Agricultural Workers for the Defence of Workers’ Rights, of which the General Confederation of Workers of Guatemala (CGTG) forms a part, the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (CUSG), the National Trade Union and Peoples’ Coordinating Body (CNSP), the National Federation of Trade Unions of Public Employees of Guatemala (FENASTEG), the Trade Union Federation of Farm Workers (FESOC), the Trade Union of Health Workers of Guatemala, the Eastern Distribution Workers’ Union and the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (UNSITRAGUA)"" (ILO Report, 2010). At the time of the report's release, the Committee had not received a response from Guatemala on the comments provided by these organizations.",Multi-Lateral Organizations,International Labour Organization,,Demonstrations,,,United Nations System,,,Multi-Lateral Organization Proceedings,"Right to consultation|Right to free, prior and informed consent" 2016 Investigation by Human Rights Ombudsperson [Cerro Blanco],"In December 2016, Guatemala's Human Rights Ombudsperson released a decision relating to an investigation of the alleged violation of the human right to a healthy environment by Entre Mares, S.A., as a result of the operation of and waste produced by its Cerro Blanco mine. As part of its investigation, the Human Rights Prosecutor solicited reports from the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Municipality of Asunción Mita (Jutiapa), interviewed residents of the village of Cerro Blanco and workers at the mine, visited the Cerro Blanco mine with engineers employed by the company, reviewed the company's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a responding report by Dr. Dina López, solicited information from Entre Mares, and considered the impact of Cerro Blanco's operations on shared watercourses with El Salvador and the possibility for conflict between the two countries, among other things. The Ombudsperson also considered obligations under Guatemala's constitution, as well as relevant national legislation and international and regional instruments. The Ombudsperson determined that the right to a healthy environment is internationally and nationally recognized as a fundamental human right. He further found that the mining licences relied upon by the company are based on an EIA that does not take into account, among other things, the risk of discharging geothermic waters into surface water, the presence of dangerous substances (such as, arsenic) in the geothermal systems in the mine site, and the potential impact on plant and wildlife of discharging higher temperature waters, among other concerns. With respect to the mine's workers, the Ombudsperson found that, since the beginnng of the project, workers at the mine have been vulnerable to workplace accidents and suboptimal conditions, and have received unfair compensation. Accordingly, the Ombudsperson recommended that, among others things: (1) the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources be alert to and monitor new situations that have arisen during the development of the project that were not foreseen in the original EIA, ask Entre Mares to expand its EIA to take into account Dr. López's conclusions, and take into account the number of projects in the area when assessing future licence applications (2) the Minister of Energy and Mines monitor new situations that have arisen during the development of the Cerro Blanco project (3) the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Congress developed the necessary processes to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and (4) that Entre Mares comply with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, in particular with respect to human rights due diligence requirements. At the time of writing (September 2021), no further developments have been reported on this investigation or vis-à-vis compliance with the recommendations. The mine was suspended by Goldcorp Inc. in 2013, but has since been sold to Bluestone Resources Inc., which is in the process of finalizing its feasibility studies.",Community Representatives|Company(ies)|Departmental and Municipal Government Institutions|Non-Governmental Organizations|State Institutions,Human Rights Ombudsperson (Guatemala),"Asunción Mita, Jutiapa",Campaigns,,Guatemala,Guatemalan System,Gold|Silver,Central America,Criminal or Regulatory Proceedings,Right to a healthy environment|Right to health