Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v Argentina

For centuries, Salta, Argentina, has served as the ancestral land for various indigenous communities, including the Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí), and Tapy’y (Tapiete) peoples. These lands have faced increased occupation by non-indigenous residents who engage in environmentally destructive activities. These activities, including illegal logging, livestock farming, and the installation of fences, have disrupted the indigenous people’s traditional ways of life, customs, and access to food and water. Furthermore, significant state-led development projects, like the construction of an international bridge, were undertaken without prior consultation with the local communities.

In August 1998, the Lhaka Honhat Association (Plaintiffs) lodged a petition with the IACHR concerning several detrimental activities. They alleged that (1) the State had violated their rights to communal property by initiating public infrastructure projects and conducting hydrocarbon exploration within their traditional indigenous territory without adhering to inter-American standards requiring free, prior, and informed consultation; and (2) the Defendants had permitted and overlooked unauthorized actions by private individuals, including erecting fences, logging, and engaging in cattle farming on indigenous lands. The Plaintiffs’ petition was accepted by the IACHR in 2006. In 2012, the IACHR issued a report acknowledging violations against the Llaka Honhat communities and recommended protective measures for their land. However, essential measures like land demarcation, infrastructure development and reduction of logging activities were still incomplete after six years. Consequently, in 2019, the IACHR referred the case to the Inter-American Court.

The Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the significant adverse effects of non-indigenous activities on the land and indigenous traditions. It concluded that Argentina had failed to prevent these harms. The Court’s analysis of R2HE drew upon domestic constitutional safeguards in Argentina, international treaties, and previous decisions and Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court. Reference was made to the American Convention, emphasizing that R2HE entails a dual obligation for states: to respect and ensure its protection. This responsibility encompasses preventing violations through legal, political, administrative, and cultural actions, even when caused by third parties. It was emphasized that this duty aligns with the prevention principle, part of customary international law. Additionally, the Court elucidated on the interconnectedness of R2HE with other rights, such as access to food, water, and the rights of indigenous peoples.

The Court underscored the vital role of indigenous communities in stewarding resources within their territories, particularly in preserving the environment. It acknowledged the significant contribution of indigenous peoples in conserving nature through sustainable practices deeply rooted in their traditions. Upholding the rights of indigenous communities not only respects their autonomy but also fosters environmental conservation. Hence, the Court advocated viewing the rights of these communities and international environmental standards as harmonious and mutually supportive.

Using an established international body of law to support R2HE

The Plaintiffs lodged their petition with the IACHR, citing violations of their rights under the American Convention of Human Rights. They argued that Argentina disregarded their R2HE, cultural identity, and access to adequate food. As per Article 26 of the Convention, States are obligated to ensure the progressive development of rights encompassing economic, social, educational, and cultural dimensions, as outlined in the regional OAS Charter. Argentina’s failure to prevent or halt environmental harm caused by private entities—such as illegal logging, fencing, and animal husbandry—was highlighted by the Plaintiffs. They referenced language from the United Nations Committee on Economic and Social Rights, stating that Argentina was “fully aware of the details of environmental degradation” and failed to prevent and reverse the damage, or “safeguard their way of life.”

However, Article 26 of the Convention does not explicitly mention R2HE, leading the Plaintiffs to argue that it should be encompassed within its provisions. They pointed to Articles 30, 31, 33, and 34 of the OAS Charter, which advocate for social and economic justice and comprehensive development, as providing the normative framework for such inclusion. In response to this argument, the IACHR urged the Inter-American Court to clarify how Article 26 intersects with the rights of indigenous peoples, specifically addressing the right to food and R2HE. 

The Court agreed and cited their Advisory Opinion, the American Convention, and the OAS Charter. R2HE “constitutes a universal value,” “fundamental [to] the existence of humankind,” and “as an autonomous right … it protects components of the environment … as legal interests in themselves.” Drawing upon sources outside the Organization of American States, the Court referred to the Salta Constitution, the Argentinian National Constitution and Argentina’s ratification of the Protocol of San Salvador. Article 1(1) of the American Convention and the prevention principle of customary international law obligated Argentina to prevent third parties from violating protected rights, which includes the R2HE.

Utilizing a variety of legal arguments

The examination of R2HE was intertwined with other rights, particularly those of indigenous communities. A core concern in the case revolved around the inadequate delineation, demarcation, and titling of the ancestral lands belonging to over 90 indigenous communities. The repercussions of both actions and inactions on their lands, culture, customary practices, and overall way of life were intricately linked to their R2HE. These communities held a unique bond with their land, and the degradation experienced extended “beyond merely economic and subsistence aspects, affecting their [cultural] identity.” The Court acknowledged the inseparable link between environmental and human rights, recognizing that vulnerable groups bear a disproportionate brunt of environmental degradation.

The case of the Lhaka Honhat Association presented to the Inter-American Court, facilitated by the IACHR, underscores the extensive journey involved in pursuing justice through regional and international legal avenues. Nonetheless, it also demonstrates that such bodies offer a ray of hope when domestic options have been exhausted, and signifies the potential for significant influence on the development of customary international law and universally acknowledged fundamental rights. This case serves as an example of how litigants can interpret legal frameworks, emphasizing the interconnectedness and parallels between R2HE and other core rights. It demonstrates the ability to integrate R2HE principles into treaties and conventions that might not explicitly delineate the “right to a healthy environment.”