Archive for the ‘Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP)’ Category

Earth Peoples co-founder Arthur Manuel passed away, 66-years-old.

Friday, January 13th, 2017

Dear Earth Peoples.
Arthur Manuel was always working hard.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse brought me to collaborate with Rebecca Sommer, one of my best friends… and this is where I met Arthur. I was very glad to from the start. I was in line with him in the cafeteria at the UN during the indigenous peoples caucus for the Earth Peoples partners event. I got some coffee and was going to sit down at the table he was at. Arthur said with warning…you might not want to sit there. I said oh is this seat taken? He said no its just that you might not want to be associated with me. A lot of people do not like me.
I looked around over my shoulders and said.. jokingly I said….want me to beat them up for you? He laughed a lot. That was the comical and genuine relationship that I had with him from the start. He is someone I am honored to say has changed my life and i can call him my favorite person and a best friend. I am so thrilled that I had the opportunity to know Arthur.
Arthur was my Earth Peoples brother, a child of our mother Earth and I loved him very much. I always looked up to him for saving the world. I remember saying to Arthur that I hope that I can somehow make a difference in the world like he does. I would like to make my life meaningful. He said Elaine, You don’t want to do what i do. He said… I am not complaining but Elaine, you have the creative arts and you can work in that medium and be effective. As you do…. and it seems more fun. That meant a lot to me. I appreciate that with all of my heart. I hope that i can send that message through my art so that I can make him proud and maybe send some laughs too.
He lives forever in our hearts. He lived. I only hope that I can too live a life that makes the ancestors proud  as was well.

Book Arhur ManualHis last writing to me was when he signed his book
Unsettling Canada
for me with the words “May the world be good to you my friend.
-Arthur”

He will be greatly missed!!!

Elaine+Arthur

Racism in the Arab world

Tuesday, November 24th, 2015

Racism in the Arab world covers an array of forms of intolerance against non-Arab groups, minorities in Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

The previously forbidden topics of race and racism in the Arab world have been explored more since the rise of foreign, private and independent media. In one example, Al-Jazeera’s critical coverage of the Darfur crisis led to the arrest and conviction of its Khartoum bureau chief.
Read more . . .

DECLARACION DE V CUMBRE ABYA YALA: “DEFENDIENDO EL FUTURO DE NUESTRAS NACIONES”

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

“Del 9 al 11 de abril las organizaciones indigenas realizaran una cumbre indigena paralela a la de los Estados. Adjunto borrador de la declaracion para sus contribuciones” Hector Huertas, coordinador de redacción de la declaracion

 

DECLARACION DE V CUMBRE ABYA YALA: “DEFENDIENDO EL FUTURO DE NUESTRAS NACIONES”

 

Nosotros, los representantes de los Pueblos y Naciones indígenas de Abya Yala de las regiones de Sudamérica, Centroamérica, Norteamérica y el Caribe, en el ejercicio del derecho a la libre determinación y en defensa de la Madre Tierra, hacemos de conocimiento de los Estados nuestra posición frente a la VII cumbre de Jefes de Estados y Gobierno de las Américas a celebrarse en Panamá del 9 al 10 de abril de 2015.

 

 

CONSIDERANDO

 

Que nosotros los Pueblos y Naciones indígenas originarias de Abya Yala, teniendo como base la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (2007), La resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el 14 de diciembre de 1960 (Numeral 1 de la Declaración sobre la Concesión de la Independencia a los Países y Pueblos Coloniales); el convenio 169 de la OIT (1989); La Declaración de Viena 2003, la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación Racial y el Documento final de la reunión plenaria de alto nivel de la Asamblea General de la ONU, Conferencia Mundial sobre los Pueblos Indígenas y otros instrumentos Internacionales relacionados a pueblos indígenas y el ambiente.

 

Que a través de estos instrumentos internacionales, los Estados de las Américas, se han obligado adoptar decisiones de carácter legislativo, administrativo y judicial, para la erradicación de la desigualdad, no discriminación, y la exclusión histórica de los Pueblos Indígenas reconociendo la dignidad inherente y nuestra contribución desarrollo, en especial de la mujer indígena.

Que en las Seis Cumbres de las Américas y sus sesiones extraordinarias los jefes de Estado y de los gobiernos de la región han aprobado compromisos a través de la adopción de declaraciones y planes de acciones, para igualmente erradicar la exclusión, desigualdad, el respeto a los derechos humanos, la consolidación de la democracia, libre comercio, la adopción de la carta democrática, empleo, prosperidad humana, seguridad energética, sostenibilidad ambiental, integración de las Américas, pobreza, desigualdad y seguridad ciudadana que alcanza la situación de los Pueblos Indígenas.

Que a pesar de la existencia de todos los instrumentos y legislaciones internacionales existentes prevalece y recrudece la pobreza, marginación y exclusión de los Pueblos Indígenas en las Américas.

Los Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas llamamos, la atención a los Estados a establecer compromisos serios de corto plazo a fin de cumplir con el mandato internacional por lo que proponen las siguientes Acciones y Compromisos ante los Jefes de Estados y de gobiernos:

Que en las actuales negociaciones de la Declaración Americana sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas existe un marcado desinterés de parte de los Estados de no contribuir con el fondo de contribuciones voluntarias para apoyar la participación plena y efectiva de los representantes indígenas de las Américas, y los obstáculos a no querer aprobar una declaración fuerte por arriba de los estándares de la declaración de la ONU.

COMPROMISOS

1.     Que los Jefes de Estado y Ministros de Estados se comprometan a financiar el fondo de contribuciones voluntarias para permitir la participación indígenas en el Grupo de Trabajo que prepara la Declaración Americana sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y su compromiso a adoptar una declaración fuerte y no por debajo de los estándares de la DNUDPI.

2.     Los pueblos y naciones indígenas pedimos a todos los Estados, se hagan las reformas constitucionales para desmantelar la doctrina del Res Nullius del sistema jurídico, la propiedad del Estado sobre los recursos del suelo y subsuelo en detrimento de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, implementar con carácter de prioridad los derechos establecidos en la declaración de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas adoptado por la Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas.   Solicitamos se establezca un comité de expertos independientes designados por la Asamblea General cuyo mandato es la verificación de la implementación de la Declaración sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la ONU.

3.     Se impulse el derecho a la libre determinación de los Pueblos Indígenas, en ese sentido se desarrollen los regímenes autónomos necesarios que le permitan a los Pueblos Indígenas, ser los sujetos del desarrollo, la democracia y la gobernanza sobre sus tierras, territorios y recursos naturales.

4.     Se implemente, el Buen Vivir como derecho humano y principio rector de las políticas públicas de los Estados en los proyectos y planes de desarrollo económico y social que impulsen.

5.     Se implemente los derechos colectivos sobre las tierras, territorios y recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas, el carácter colectivo, inalienable e inadjudicable de los mismos a fin de garantizar la pervivencia de los Pueblos Indígenas en los Estados y en particular a los Pueblos Indígenas no contactados.

6.     Que el derecho al consentimiento previo libre e informado sea desarrollado en la mayoría de los Estados no como un mero trámite para obligar a los Pueblos Indígenas a dar su consentimiento, si no para garantizar el respeto a nuestros derechos humanos, desarrollando los mandatos de la declaración de la ONU en esta materia.

7.     Los Estados deben insertar en todos sus procesos educativos el aporte de los Pueblos Indígenas en la historia, ciencias, artes, filosofía e identidad de Abya Yala e impulsando la educación intercultural en todos los niveles a fin de reflejar la identidad cultural de las naciones, garantizando su participación activa en el proceso, acorde a su cultura, tradiciones e identidad, mediante acciones afirmativas. La Comisión Interamericana de Educación observar el cumplimiento de este mandato hasta que se elimine el racismo, en los textos escolares y en los sistemas de educación. La educación intercultural será una prioridad de los programas de educación.

  1. Los Estados deben en sus programas de salud insertar la visión colectiva holística de la salud indígena, evitar proyectos que comprometan la salud colectiva de los indígenas, reconociendo su medicina tradicional y protegiendo sus recursos y conocimientos de la piratería. Los programas de salud de carácter universal deben insertar la visión holística tanto como colectiva como individual de los Pueblos Indígenas de modo que no se pueden aprobar proyectos de desarrollo en territorios indígenas que afectan la salud indígena de modo que se genere equidad. Por otro lado, en ejercicio a la libre determinación los sistemas de salud tradicional de los Pueblos Indígenas deben formar parte de la estrategia de desarrollo.

 

  1. Se debe adoptar en corto plazo el desarrollo energético propio de los Pueblos Indígenas a través del financiamiento de estas iniciativas a fin de que la energía alternativa llegue a nuestras comunidades. Las instituciones financieras deben condicionar el financiamiento de proyectos energéticos al respeto de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y la participación de los beneficios se deben adecuar antes los marcos legales de carácter nacional y regional.

 

  1. Reconociendo las graves consecuencias del cambio climático y que dicho fenómeno es producto de la utilización indiscriminada de los recursos de la madre tierra por los países industrializados los Estados deben exigir a los países responsables a reducir sus emisiones y no pretender usar los recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas como excusas para no cumplir con sus obligaciones internacionales. Rechazamos, los proyectos que tiene como justificación atacar el cambio climático que afectan las tierras, territorios y recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

ACCIONES

 

  1. Solicitar a la reunión de Ministros y Altas Autoridades de Desarrollo Sostenible de la OEA que exija el cumplimiento e implementación de la DNUDPI a los Estados miembros de la Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 20) en todas las medidas que afecten a los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

  1. Que los Estados se obligan a financiar las medidas de adaptación al cambio climático para los sectores más vulnerables, en especial los Pueblos Indígenas y cuantificar los impactos económicos del cambio climático de manera desagregada sobre sectores clave para los países de la región, como las tierras y territorios indígenas, la agricultura, los recursos hídricos, los asentamientos humanos, las zonas costeras, la biodiversidad, la salud entre otros. En este contexto, prestar especial atención a las políticas y acciones relacionadas con la mitigación y la adaptación del cambio climático presentadas o realizadas por los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

  1. Apoyar los procesos de planificación, ordenamiento territorial y titulación de los territorios indígenas que se realizan a nivel nacional y sub nacional incorporen de manera prioritaria la prevención y mitigación de riesgos ambientales. Asimismo, a través de inversiones y políticas promover un desarrollo sostenible. Encomendar a las instituciones financieras y a la OEA que apoyen este esfuerzo.

 

  1. En el marco de la declaración de la naciones unidas sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el Convenio sobre los derechos de los trabajadores migrantes y sus familias aprobado por la Asamblea General en su resolución 45/158, de 18 de diciembre de 1990, y entró en vigor el 1º de julio de 2003, se debe tomar en consideración la situación de los indígenas migrantes. El Grupo de Trabajo migrantes en Conjunto de las Cumbres (GTCC), particularmente a los representantes de los Pueblos Indígenas e Instituciones Financieras, que continúen apoyando los esfuerzos de los países para crear las condiciones económicas y sociales para generar más y mejores oportunidades que permitan el desarrollo y el arraigo de la población en sus países. En particular, los desarrollar programas en las regiones de fronteras a fin de regularizar la situación de indígenas migrantes y transfronterizos y el desarrollo de las capacidades propias del territorio de modo que puedan satisfacer sus derechos humanos.

 

  1. Reconociendo que el desarrollo integral y equitativo contribuye a crear condiciones de seguridad y que a su vez mejores condiciones de seguridad propician mayor prosperidad, solicitamos las siguientes acciones:
  • Se deben reconocer los mecanismos propios de seguridad de los Pueblos Indígenas
  • Se debe prohibir la militarización de los territorios indígenas
  • Se debe apoyar a los Pueblos Indígenas en la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas.

 

  1. Desarrollar esfuerzos especiales dirigidos a reducir la violencia en contra de la mujer, particularmente a través de implementación de políticas públicas eficaces, de capacitación de funcionarios y la recolección de datos e información estadística, particularmente en el marco de la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia Contra la Mujer (Convención de Belem do Para). Encomendamos a la OEA, a través de la Comisión Interamericana de Mujeres que continúe sus esfuerzos en este ámbito, especialmente a través del fortalecimiento del mecanismo de seguimiento de la Convención.

 

  1. Crear, sin restricciones ni limitaciones de participación, el Foro Interamericano de los Pueblos Indígenas, de tal forma que haya un proceso continuo de participación y consulta con los representantes de los Pueblos Indígenas y no solamente en la época previa a la celebración de una Cumbre de las Américas. Encomendamos a la OEA que establezca y gestione el Foro.

 

  1. Implementar la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas, particularmente a través del uso de la tecnología y soluciones digitales. En función de ello, promover el gobierno abierto y el derecho a la información como herramientas claves para lograr mayor transparencia e inclusión.

 

  1. Fortalecer el Estado de Derecho Democrático, la separación e independencia entre los Poderes del Estado, la libre determinación y autonomías de los Pueblos Indígenas, el respeto a los derechos humanos, la transparencia, integridad y eficiencia de la gestión pública, así como la creación de condiciones que hagan posible la implementación de la declaración de la ONU en la participación plena y efectiva en todo el ciclo de las políticas públicas, principalmente mediante la democratización del acceso a las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Encomendamos a la OEA que le dé seguimiento a este tema.

 

  1. Promover el derecho a la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas de acuerdo a sus formas de representación en las contiendas electorales.  Financiar las autonomías indígenas como una forma de fortalecer la democracia.

 

  1. La situación de las mujeres indígenas y los niños indígenas es alarmante en las Américas, se propone realizar acciones urgentes con la participación de los pueblos indígenas para promover el respeto de los derechos de las mujeres, jóvenes y niños, niñas indigenas.

 

  1. Promover y visibilizar la participación de las mujeres indígenas en la agenda política nacional de género, en los programas de salud y educación como protagonistas generadoras de cultura.   Promover acciones educativas concretas dirigidas insertar a la mujer indígena en el ámbito laboral acorde con su realidad sociocultural.

 

  1. Fortalecer los programas nacionales en donde los haya y donde no crearlas para atender la seguridad alimentaria, y la atención primaria de los niños y juventud indígena en su integridad física, como psicológica. Promover el empleo de la juventud indígena.

 

  1. Los Pueblos Indígenas son los más marginados en el derecho de acceso a la información y comunicación, muchos proyectos de desarrollos o decisiones administrativas se toman sin la debida información a las comunidades indígenas, la participación es uno de los pilares para la democracia , no se puede participar si no se sabe o estaba debidamente informado: Proponemos

 

  • El desarrollo urgente de programas de acceso a la información y comunicación en el idioma de los Estados y los idiomas indígenas

 

  • Se debe fortalecer en los programas de desarrollo de redes comunitarias en lengua indígena que permitan el acceso a la información

 

  • Se deben desarrollar programas que permitan a los Pueblos indígenas a tener acceso a tecnología de la información.

 

Dado el 10 y 11 de abril de 2015, en la ciudad de Panamá.

 

Indigenous Peoples Statement to UNPFII Expert Group Meeting: Dialogue on an optional protocol

Thursday, March 5th, 2015

“We cannot allow procedures that will allow for states to move disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources from international processes to domestic judicial and political forums.” *Tonya Gonella Frischner, Onondaga Nation*

Statement to the UNPFII Expert Group Meeting:
Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
28-29 January 2015, UN Headquarters
Presented by the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA)

*Current and Historical Context*

1. We recall that Indigenous Nations and Peoples came to the United Nations in 1977, in part to have our nation-to-nation treaties upheld by UN bodies. We note that some of those courageous leaders are still with us today and still fully engaged in the fight to have our treaties upheld. At the time, Indigenous Nations and Peoples felt that this international forum would be one place to ensure enforcement of treaties between our Indigenous Nations and other governments such as the United States and Canada.

2. We further recall the statement of Ms. Navi Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking at the time in her official position, on the central importance of treaties on August 7, 2013: “Even when signed or otherwise agreed more than a century ago, many treaties remain the cornerstone for the protection of the identity, land and customs
of indigenous peoples, determining the relationship they have with the State.” The statement marked the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on August 9, 2013.1

3. With that current and historical context, we take note of the “Study on an optional protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples focusing on a voluntary mechanism” (E/C.19/2014/7)2 which was prepared by Permanent Forum members Professor Dalee S. Dorough and Professor Megan Davis for the Thirteenth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) with the Special
Theme: “Principles of Good Governance consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, articles 3 to 6 and 46,” held May 12-23, 2014 at UN Headquarters.

4. The Haudenosaunee intervention on ‘Principles of Good
Governance,’ delivered by Chief Oren Lyons (Onondaga Nation), under Agenda Item 3 at the Thirteenth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) delivered on May 14, 2014 in paragraph 21, expressed the concern that a proposed optional protocol “*may allow procedures for states to move disputes regarding lands, territories and resources from
international processes to domestic judicial and political forums*.

5. We take note that the upcoming Fourteenth Session of the UNPFII to take place April 20- May 1, 2015 at UN Headquarters lists as its proposed Agenda Item 5: Half-day discussion on the expert group meeting on the theme “Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People”. We encourage this to be an
open dialogue on the various proposals and drawbacks for an optional protocol, considering these proposals from all angles, and including the “full, equal, and effective participation” of Indigenous Peoples.

*Full, Equal, and Effective Participation*

6. A separate but related issue under consideration at this Expert Group Meeting is the proposal to revise EMRIP’s mandate, which emerged from the negotiations of the HLPM/WCIP Outcome Document. Paragraph 28 of the Outcome Document of the HLPM/WCIP states: “We invite the Human Rights Council, taking into account the views of indigenous peoples, to review the
mandates of its existing mechanisms, in particular the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, during the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, with a view to modifying and improving the Expert Mechanism so that it can more effectively promote respect and the enforcement of the Declaration, including by better assisting Member States
to monitor, evaluate and improve the achievement of the ends of the Declaration.”

7. We note the HLPM/WCIP process arose between the annual sessions of the UNPFII. As a result, the proposed revision of EMRIP has not had the benefit of the full, equal, and effective participation by Indigenous Peoples. We are concerned that an essential Indigenous mechanism within the
UN system is being revised without the full participation of Indigenous Peoples. *We are concerned that a lack of full, equal, and effective participation is the new norm within the UN system*.

8. This lack of full, equal and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples contradicts the Modalities Resolution of the HLPM/WCIP and UNDRIP Articles 3, 18, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38 42 43 and 46. The full, equal, and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples is a clearly established requirement.

*Areas of Concern*

9. We acknowledge and appreciate all the papers submitted to this Expert Group Meeting by each expert and we have carefully reviewed each paper. We share the view as was laid out in the initial “Study on an optional protocol” and in some of the subsequent expert papers submitted for this Expert Group Meeting, that an implementation gap exists for the
UNDRIP. We also share the view that there is a lack of adequate knowledge and understanding of the UNDRIP. Part of AILA’s work since the adoption of the UNDRIP in 2007 has been to continually educate on its content and advocate for its implementation on local, continental and global levels.

10. We continue to be concerned about the desire for UN Member States to ‘domesticate’ our rights, rather than maintain relations with Indigenous Nations and Peoples in the international arena, on a nation-to-nation basis, which was the original purpose of Indigenous Nations and Peoples in coming to the UN. It should be duly noted that international law supersedes domestic law. We are concerned about moving disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources to an optional protocol, which would rely on governments to do the right thing and ratify this optional protocol.

11. We find a few proposals, presented in the expert paper submitted by Professor Mattias Åhrén to the Expert Group Meeting, relating to a possible new role for EMRIP to be particularly troubling.

12. The suggestion that only Indigenous Peoples recognized by states would be eligible to submit complaints to a new optional protocol body, is
in direct violation of the UNDRIP, our right to full, effective and equal
participation, and violates the right to self-determination. This is non-negotiable. We have been fighting against the perception that states
decide who is or is not Indigenous for hundreds of years.

13. A six month time limitation to raise human rights issues in international fora after exhausting domestic options is damaging and overly burdensome for our Peoples. We are unclear who determines what rights could be deemed principally important.

14. As we all know, UNDRIP was the result of an over twenty year negotiation process and sets the minimum standards for the “survival,dignity and well-being” of Indigenous Peoples around the world. Article 43 of the UNDRIP states: “The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples of
the world.” It has been established that the UNDRIP, along with the UN Charter, the human rights covenants and other applicable international human rights laws must be the basis for discussing the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP has a strong norm setting role in international law, and member states cannot pick and choose when and which Articles they comply with of UNDRIP. Additionally, for Indigenous Nations
and Peoples, our treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements are the basis for the protection of our lands, territories and resources.

15. This proposed new role for EMRIP could lead to a claim of a ‘duplication of work within the UN system.’ We were happy to see that the original “Study on an optional protocol” stressed that “a voluntary mechanism cannot serve as a way for States to avoid being monitored by existing international or regional human rights bodies and mechanisms” (paragraph 40).

16. The work of the UNPFII is of paramount importance within the UN system. The American Indian Law Alliance, and the Nations and communities we serve, have always supported and continue to support the work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Our Founder and President, Tonya
Gonnella Frichner, Esq. (Onondaga Nation), served as the North American Regional Representative to the UNPFII for a three year term from 2008-2011, brought forward by Indigenous Peoples. As a result of that role, she has direct experience and participated first-hand in the indispensable work of the Forum.

17. Indigenous Peoples have a voice and we must be recognized as our own experts in any forum concerning us.

*Recommendations:*

1. We cannot allow procedures that will allow for states to move disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources from international processes to domestic judicial and political forums.

2. In line with established international law, the UNDRIP, the UN Charter, and all other applicable international law must be the framework for the realization of the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, including Article 37 of the UNDRIP:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition,
observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

*3. All deliberations* concerning a proposed optional protocol for the UNDRIP, including any proposed overhaul of the mandate of EMRIP *must include the full, effective, equal participation of all Indigenous Peoples in line with the UNDRIP*.

4. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is an integral, international human rights instrument that recognizes the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right of self-determination, must be continually implemented on all levels. Further education on the content of UNDRIP is needed for
Indigenous Nations and Peoples, UN member states, UN agencies, civil society, governments at all levels and society at large. Adequate financial resources must be made available to further these goals.

Indigenous Peoples: REPORT CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Sunday, February 1st, 2015

REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
In regard to the
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Second Cycle-22nd Session
April-May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

Submitted by Indigenous World Association (IWA) an ECOSOC NGO and the Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment
This Report is submitted by the Indigenous World Association (IWA), an ECOSOC accredited NGO, together with the Laguna-Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment (LACSE). LACSE, an organization of Laguna Pueblo and Acoma Pueblo residents, in New Mexico, USA, is committed to addressing uranium mining legacy issues, including protection of sacred areas, affecting both indigenous nations, and is a member of the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment (MASE, masecoalition.org)., which addresses issues of environmental justice related to uranium mining in the Grants uranium belt in Northwestern New Mexico.

Summary

Despite the 2010 statement in support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by the United States, the United States has failed to provide meaningful implementation of the rights contained in the UNDRIP. Perhaps in response to the calls by this body in the last UPR cycle in March 2010, as well as that of other UN Human bodies, the United States issued a statement in support of the UNDRIP in December 2010. However the United States continues to insist that the UNDRIP is “a non-binding, aspirational document” and renders the UNDRIP ineffective through federal, state and local actions that deny indigenous peoples the exercise of rights contained in the ICCPR, the ICERD, and the UNDRIP.

This report addresses the United States’ failure to provide substantive protection for sacred areas and landscapes, in the face of recommendations by the Human Rights Committee in the 2014 ICCPR review, by the CERD committee in the 2014 CERD Review, and by several UN special rapporteurs. Related to these rights are those impacted by extractive activities that impact sacred areas and discriminatorily deprive indigenous communities of essential human rights such as the right to free prior and informed consent and rights related to religion and culture.

1. Mt. Taylor (“Kaaweesthiimaa” in the Acoma language, “Tsibiinaa” in the Laguna language), a sacred landscape and area to Acoma, Laguna, and other Indigenous Nations in the region, is under threat of irreparable harm should proposed uranium mining by Roca Honda Resources, LLC, and others proceed in the area. Despite the recognition of this area as a traditional cultural property under federal and state law, the United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States government, has taken actions which substantively disregard United States obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), especially rights with regard to property, health, and participation in cultural activities provided in Article 5 of the ICERD. Despite the Recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “CERD”) in 2008, to ensure that activities carried out in areas of spiritual and cultural significance to Native Americans do not have a negative impact on the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention, the United States has failed to observe its human rights obligations in this situation.

2. Current federal law purporting to provide protection for cultural rights, and policy on consultation in cases affecting protection of cultural rights, including Executive Orders, have provided no substantive protection for cultural rights. Both the federal and state governments are responsible permitting agencies for mining activities. However, the United States has not taken sufficient steps to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure a coordinated approach towards the implementation of the Convention at the federal, state and local levels, which are all implicated in the case of Mt. Taylor.

3. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department have failed to clean up 97 abandoned uranium mines and 5 former mills in the Grants Mining District in New Mexico after 30 plus years. This includes the Homestake-Barrick Gold mill site now a U.S. Superfund site.

4. The United States Department of Agriculture, and its subsidiary the United States Forest Service, is seeking to permit new uranium mining which will irreparably impact the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property. The free prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples impacted, including Laguna Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation has not been fully obtained for new proposed uranium mining at Mt. Taylor, which is within the aboriginal lands of these indigenous peoples in New Mexico. obtained.

5. Human rights violations of affected indigenous people in New Mexico have been presented in reports to the Human Rights Committee in the United States Review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the CERD Committee as part of the United States review under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) during 2014. In both reviews, the United Nations monitoring committees issued conclusions and recommendations regarding protection of sacred places and the need to provide free, prior and informed consent especially in cases regarding extractive activities.

6. The United States has failed to implement existing laws in a manner that fully implements the rights contained in the UNDRIP, including access to sacred sites and cultural rights. These laws include the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000 bbl), and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) It also violates Executive Order 13007, which directs federal agencies to “accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practioners.”

7. The United is ignoring established federal laws and policies protecting indigenous sacred sites when it permits new extractive mining. Specifically it ignores Cite: See Shadow Reports referenced herein and submitted to ICCPR and CERD. See also, Letter of Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, dated June 13, 2013, pp. 5-7.

8. The United States continues to apply discriminatory laws, such as the General Mining Act of 1872, the 1897 Organic Act, and the 1955 Multiple Use Mining Act, all of which preference mining activities over cultural practices on public land.

9. The United States has so far failed to educate federal agencies, state agencies, and local governments on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The UPR Working Group, in the first UPR cycle for the United States, urged the United States to incorporate human rights training and education in their public policies.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the United States follow the recommendation of several human rights bodies and establish a National Human Rights institution.
2. That the United States fully implement the UNDRIP.
3. That the United States undertake a comprehensive review of domestic laws and policies, which some U.S. and state agencies interpret to privilege extractive activities over the rights of indigenous peoples, and bring them into compliance with international human rights standards.
4. That the United States adopt effective measures to protect cultural landscapes and sacred areas of indigenous peoples against desecration, contamination and destruction and ensure that consultations are held with the communities that might be adversely affected by State party’s development projects and exploitation of natural resources with a view to obtaining their free, prior and informed consent for the potential project activities.
5. Recommend that the United States take steps to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure a coordinated approach towards the implementation of the Convention at the federal, state and local levels.”

Indígenas bloqueiam BR que liga o estado de Roraima a Venezuela contra a PEC 215

Sunday, December 21st, 2014

Cerca de 1000 indígenas bloquearam na manhã de hoje, 17, de dezembro, a BR- 174 que liga o estado de Roraima a Venezuela em protesto contra a PEC 215. A manifestação é pacífica e os indígenas do estado de Roraima exigem o arquivamento da medida legislativa.

Neste clima de intranquilidade, os povos indígenas clamam por justiça e pedem pela garantia dos direitos previstos na Constituição Federal. Os povos afirmam que a PEC 215 é inconstitucional e infringe direitos previstos na lei.

Entenda a PEC 215

A Proposta de Emenda Constitucional (PEC 215/2000) é de autoria do ex-deputado federal Almir Sá (RR) que, “acrescenta o inciso XVIII ao art. 49; modifica o § 4º e acrescenta o § 8º ambos no art. 231, da Constituição Federal” para incluir dentre as competências exclusivas do Congresso Nacional a aprovação de demarcação das terras tradicionalmente ocupadas pelos índios e a ratificação das demarcações já homologadas; e para estabelecer critérios e procedimentos de demarcação serão regulamentados por lei”.

No momento, a discussão da PEC 215 está na Comissão Especial da Câmara dos Deputados criada na apresentar parecer. A Comissão é formada na sua maioria por deputados ligados a bancada ruralista que apoiam a PEC 215 e tentam aprovar um Relatório Substitutivo.

O novo parecer além de corroborar o texto original, inclui as piores e inconstitucionais condicionantes do Caso da Raposa Serra do Sol estabelecida pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Tais condicionantes foram consideradas pelos ministros do STF como não vinculantes, portanto, não devem se estender a outras terras, mesmo assim a bancada ruralista tenta incorporar no texto da PEC 215.

Além disso, segundo informações publicadas em jornais e pelo Ministério Público Federal, o Relatório Substitutivo a ser discutido teria sido produzido fora da Comissão Especial, por advogado ligado ao CNA pago para atender os interesses individuais dos ruralistas envolvidos em invasão em terras indígenas no Mato Grosso do Sul.

A PEC 215 afronta seriamente os direitos constitucionais. Coloca em risco a sobrevivência física e cultural dos povos indígenas que dependem de suas terras. Somado a isso, contraria os princípios de separação de poderes ao propor transferir para o Congresso Nacional responsabilidades administrativas do governo federal, com absurda interferência clara da bancada ruralista. E o mais grave, os povos indígenas deixados de fora, do processo e das discussões, sem consultas e sem direito de entrar, falar ou defender na casa, considerado do povo, o Congresso Nacional.

As lideranças indígenas de diversas partes do estado de Roraima permanecem na manifestação divulgando suas preocupações e alertando autoridades e a sociedade brasileira sobre o risco de seus direitos.

Conselho Indígena de Roraima

17 de dezembro de 2014

Panel finds corporations, United Nations and governments guilty of violating nature’s rights

Saturday, December 13th, 2014

By Indigenous Environmental Network.

Lima, Peru (Dec. 7, 2014)– The International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature judged twelve international and domestic cases; examining the violation of the rights of peoples and nature committed by corporations, The United Nations, and governmental entities. The judgments reference the legal framework of the Rights of Nature and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The cases were reviewed on Dec. 5th and 6th in Lima’s Gran Hotel Bolivar.

According to Alberto Acosta, president of the Tribunal and former president of the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador, the rights of nature must have a universal validity. “This ethical tribunal arises when States fail to fulfill their obligation to preserve the lives of living beings,” said Acosta. “As long as nature is seen as property in law, there can be no justice for communities, the climate or nature.”

Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases

The Tribunal was dedicated to Shuar leader, José Tendentza, who was found murdered just days before the Tribunal. Tendentza of Southern Ecuador was scheduled to present the Condor Mine case. Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases that were determined by the judges to demonstrate egregious violations to rights of nature and human rights. Cases included:

-False Solutions related to Climate Change and REDD+;
-Peruvian cases: Conga Mine, Bagua Massacre – Defenders of Earth, 4 River Basins of Peru;
-Ecuadorian cases: Condor Mine, Chevron/Texaco, and Yasuni ITT
Brazil: Belo Monte Dam
-USA and Bolivia: Hydraulic fracturing “fracking”
-Oceans: BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, coal mine and other threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Of the cases, the oil exploitation of the Yasuni territory of Ecuador was condemned in addition to the relentless persecution Yasunidos are facing for their dissent. Since 2013, the Ecuadorian government green-lighted oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world and home to two indigenous nations in voluntary isolation.

In protest, a group of young Yasunidos joined together to claim the rights of nature, which are guaranteed in the Constitution of Ecuador. They collected more than 800,000 signatures to call for a referendum on the oil exploitation, but their request was rejected by electoral institutions. The Yasunidos are now suing the Ecuadorian government, led by President Rafael Correa, and are waiting for their complaint to be reviewed by the tribunal of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH).

Additionally, the Tribunal for the Rights of Nature found Chevron-Texaco in Ecuador to be guilty of using inappropriate technology and causing irreversible damage to the environment. They determined that the corporation must fully compensate those affected by the environmental impact.

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

The case of the mining project in the Cordillera del Condor was found by the Tribunal to be in direct violation of the rights of nature. They determined that mining must be suspended and those affected must be compensated. They urge the state to investigate and punish those responsible for the death of José Tendentza, the prominent social activist that was in opposition to the mining.

A widow of one of the four murdered activists shares her testimony

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

Shannon Biggs, director of Movement Rights, shared testimony on the impacts of fracking , a process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. “You cannot do safe fracking,” said Biggs. “This technique should have never been invented. It is one of the most destructive activities against the environment ever seen.”

According to Biggs, 800,000 active oil and gas wells are being fracked in the United States, producing roughly 300,000 natural gas barrels per day. Severe water pollution and earthquakes have been linked with fracking. “We die from fracking. The population is suffering from cancer; my sister has died,” said Casey Camp-Horinek (Ponca) of Oklahoma in her testimony. “The water is contaminated; we cannot fish. We are in danger of extinction.”

Plans to develop large-scale hydraulic fracking in Bolivia were reported by Martin Vilela of Platform Climate Reaction. In recent years the country has increased the production and export of natural gas. 82.4% of its production is exported, generating more than six billion dollars a year. Bolivia has 8.23 trillion cubic feet of gas, and YPFB plans to invest over 40 million dollars between 2013 and 2015. Vilela explained that in 2013 this corporation signed an agreement for fracking in the Chaco area, a region with water scarcity to extract 48 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Estimates determine that this would consume between 112 and 335 billion liters of water.

Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian architect, environmental activist presented on the contamination and temperature rise affecting Nigeria. According to Bassey, oil fields and pipelines have caused deep environmental degradation, deforestation, and countless oil spills. Life expectancy in these impacted areas is 44 years.

Bassey warned that climate change will have catastrophic consequences. “For every degree the temperature rises globally, in Africa it will rise an additional 50%.” In 2012 floods in Nigeria led to the relocation of 6 million inhabitants. Bassey speculates that in 2030 Africa violent conflicts will increase by 54% due to the lack of access to natural resources.

At the hearing on “false climate solutions,” geoengineering techniques that seek to manipulate climate without changing the conditions that cause climate change were reviewed.

REDD+ was also put on trial. President of the Huni Kui people of Acre, Brazil, Ninawa Kaxinawá (Hunikui) testified that “REDD is a lie. We do not accept putting nature on market because it is our soul and spirit; it is priceless, it is our voice.”

According to Ruth Nyambura, of the Biodiversity Network Africa, says that in Kenya, evictions are occurring as a result of REDD. “Four indigenous people were arrested,” said Nyambura. “A woman was hit by the forest service because she was outside of her land.”

The Tribunal is calling for a special hearing in Paris in 2015 to coincide with the upcoming UN COP 21 summit.

North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) withdrew in protest from “UN World Conference on Indigenous Issues”, disputing UN President of GA suggestion that an unified indigenous position has been achieved (read original NAIPC letter to United Nations)

Sunday, April 6th, 2014

The North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) letter was submitted to  Mr. Ashe’s (United Nations President of the General Assembly) on April 1, 2014,  correcting and disputing Mr. Ashe’s  suggestion in his recent UN document that an unified indigenous position has been achieved regarding the High Level Plenary Meeting on Indigenous Peoples (aka “World Conference on Indigenous Issues”), and that in fact the NAIPC withdrew from it and any further participation because the modalities that were adopted by the UN for the HLPM meeting did not respect the full, equal and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples with UN state members.

Click here to read the original letter(1 April 2014):

NAIPC Letter to the UN General Assembly’s President Mr. Ashe – disputing his suggestion that an unified indigenous position has been achieved

To read previous post North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus calls for immediate cancellation of the United Nations World Conference on Indigenous Peoples:

click here

NAMIBIA: Semi-nomadic HIMBA march again in protest – against dam construction and government attempt to bribe Himba chief’s consent- 29 March 2014

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

By Rebecca Sommer

The indigenous Himba people from Namibia object for over a decade to the construction of a hydro dam: They filed with the help of EARTH PEOPLES reports and complaint procedures at the United Nations, marched numerous times in protest, wrote letters to the head of state and other relevant governmental authorities.

Himba+Zemba from Angola and Namibia protest against dam and bribery (by Namibia and Chinese company that would build the dam) of their chief, 29.3.2014 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

Himba+Zemba from Angola and Namibia protest against dam and bribery (by Namibia and Chinese company that would build the dam) of their chief, 29.3.2014 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

Two sinister Namibian men in cahoots with the Namibia government and the Chinese company that would build the dam have been exposed to severe bribery attempts that lead to the downfall of former Himba chief Kapika. His younger brother from father side will take over the reigns next week.

Namibia regards Himba Chief Kapika (for region Epupa) as the main obstacle to the dam construction project that they desperately want to get off the ground.

It started somewhere in Novembr of last year, when information reached Earth Peoples for the first time that two Namibian business men, Mervin Hengari and Justice Tjirimuje, were heavily targeting Ovahimba (Himba) Chief Hikuminae Kapika to win his support for the construction of the Baynes Hydro Power Plant along the Kunene River.

Hengari and Tjirimuje are both due to go on trial on charges of corruption in connection with another dam issue, the Neckartal Dam tender, therefore it was more than worrisome to learn that they have made it their personal mission to bring Chief Kapika on board.

It is worthwhile to read the Observer24 Journalist Diana Ndimbra article from February 2014 for more details: Read Diana Ndimbra’s article:
GRAFT SUSPECTS FLIRT WITH CHIEF

After the two sinister characters had visited Kapika several times, they returned to the homestead of Kapika, this time with a Namibian governmental delegation, joined by Chinese company representatives that would build the dam at Orokawe.

It is said that he agreed to the proposal that members of the HImba community and himself would travel overseas “to learn about and to see dams”.

Very much to the dismay of the larger Himba community that learned about this invitation and trip to China once they had left, only two Himba were from the actual area that would be directly affected by the dam.

Himba protest 29 March 2014 / Himba women looking at the location of proposed dam (behind the mountain )  Photo © Earth Peoples

Himba protest 29 March 2014 / Himba women looking at the location of proposed dam (behind the mountain ) Photo © Earth Peoples

The group returned to Namibia in October, and since than the Himba people waited at several regional meetings for chief Kapika and the others to explain what had happened. Chief Kapika never showed up at any of the meetings, and his community grew by the time angrier while rumors began to spread that Kapika had signed a document which was believed to be a agreement on behalf of the Himba people to build the dam in Namibia.

After former chief Kapika’s return from China (and Cuba), the two murky businessmen Hengari and Tjirimuje brought Kapika and the others on a farm west of Okahnadja that belongs to one of the two businessmen men in question. There they told him that the intention was to make him a gazetted chief and promised the rest of the group of Herero and Himba 700 hundred thousand N$ to each of them should they convince him to sign his consent for the dam’s construction. Members of that group also reported to the community that several governmental meetings took place during the time in Windhoeck where governmental authorities confirmed and repeated the same promises (or bribes,  as one could say) .  The group stayed for nearly three months at the ranch.

After Kapika finally returned to Himba territory, his homestead Omuramba was all by a sudden protected by a permanent police contingent, and his own people were not allowed to speak with him without a police officer standing right next to him. They vacated his place only very recently some days ago, after the communities’ anger was starting to explode.

NAMIBIA: Himba / Zemba (Ovahimba / Ovazemba) people protest against governmental bribery of their chief to force consent on hydro dam construction with signs"NO to the dam" (PHOTO © EARTH PEOPLES)

NAMIBIA: Himba / Zemba (Ovahimba / Ovazemba) people protest against dam and governmental bribery of their chief to force his consent for hydro dam construction

At today’s indigenous peoples human rights protest that started in Okapare and ended in Epupa, with over 500 participants and covered by NBC, the Himba people reaffirmed their objection to the construction of the dam, and repeated their demands for their human rights.

They were joined by Himba from the other side of the border, Angola. Both countries don’t want to listen to their indigenous peoples, the original inhabitants of that very territory where both states want to build the dam.

“Nothing has changed, we strongly oppose the dam and will continue to fight its construction, no bribes and no targeting of our leaders will change that,” they said.

READ Himba Protest Declaration/Letter:

Himba Protest Letter 26 March 2014, explaining that they continue to object to dam construction and their objection to bribery attempts by the government of Namibia with the goal to get Himba Chief Kapika to sign a consent document to the dam.

Himba Protest Letter 26 March 2014, explaining that they continue to object to dam construction and their objection to bribery attempts by the government of Namibia with the goal to get Himba Chief Kapika to sign a consent document to the dam.

The Himba had made valuable suggestions to both states to use solar energy instead of blocking the water of the Kunene River. (Read here)

Listen to Himba’s human rights problems:
WATCH VIDEOS

Himba from Angola and Namibia protest March 29th 2014 against hydro dam / government bribery to force their chief's consent (images©Earth Peoples)

Himba from Angola and Namibia protest March 29th 2014 against hydro dam / government bribery to force their chief

Added by Earth Peoples blog administrator on the 30th of March 2014:
READ ALSO THE HIMBA INFORMATION STATEMENT 30 March 2014: HERE
Himba Information Statement written and signed on the 30 March 2014 explains that the Himba want the Namibian government to adhere to Human Rights laws, that they want the outside world to be informed of what is happening to them and that former headman Hikuminue Kapika was replaced to the newly appointed chief Mutambanda Kapika (fo Epupa/Omavanda region).

Namibia/ Indigenous Peoples: Semi nomadic Himba protest against hydro dam and for human rights 29 March 2014 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

Namibia/ Indigenous Peoples: Semi nomadic Himba protest against hydro dam and for human rights 29 March 2014 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

Denuncia del CONAMAQ ante James Anaya – suplantación orgánica y minería desterritorializadora

Friday, March 28th, 2014

Información para James Anaya, Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, respecto a vulneración de derechos de la organización nacional indígena CONAMAQ – Bolivia

Respecto al Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qollasuyu – CONAMAQ:

El CONAMAQ es el gobierno originario de 16 pueblos y naciones indígenas, constituido el 22 de marzo de 1997, con personalidad jurídica No 0342, que cumple con las tareas y las competencias basadas en las normas y procedimientos propios de los pueblos ancestrales del Qollasuyu, las mismas están reconocidas en la normativa internacional y la Constitución Política del Estado vigente.

Respecto a la democracia interna y orgánica, en el marco de los artículos 3, 4 y 5 de la Declaración sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, el CONAMAQ, como organización matriz, tiene por norma de elección y renovación de su Consejo de Gobierno (Comité Ejecutivo Nacional) el thaki (camino) y muyu (turno). Sus instancias máximas de decisión son el Mara Tantachawi (Congreso anual) y el Jach’aTantachawi (Gran Congreso). En el Jach’a Tantachawi se elige y consagra al Consejo de Gobierno, cuya gestión dura 2 años, según se establece en el Estatuto Orgánico.

El otro nivel de decisión orgánico es del denominado Consejo de Consejos (Comité Ampliado Nacional), donde participan los Mallkus y T‟allas de Suyu (Autoridades Regionales de cada Nación) de las 16 naciones miembros del CONAMAQ. Sus mandatos son vinculantes para el Consejo de Gobierno. (Anexo 1).

1. ¿Cuándo y dónde?

Fecha: el 14 de enero de 2014 alrededor de las 12:15 hrs. Lugar: oficinas del Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), ubicado en la

calle Luis Uria de la Oliva No 2833, zona Sopocachi, ciudad de La Paz – Bolivia.

2. Víctima (s) o Comunidad afectada:

Nombres, números y detalles completos sobre la localización del o pueblos indígena, comunidad o individuo(s) cuyos derechos supuestamente se han violado o están bajo amenaza.

Las víctimas son 37 autoridades originarias nacionales (dirigentes de la gestión 2014 – 2015), ex autoridades, jóvenes y representantes de comunidades del CONAMAQ (Anexo 2). La relación de los nombres es la siguiente:

1 Freddy Bernabé Martínez, Jiliri Apu Mallku (Presidente), Sora (Departamento de Oruro)

2 Cancio Rojas Colque, Arkiri Apu Mallku (Vicepresidente), Charkas Qara Qara (Departamento de Potosí),

3 Nilda Rojas Huanca, Arkiri Apu Mama T’alla (Vicepresidenta), Charkas Qara Qara (Departamento de Potosí),

4 Walberto Baraona Garnica, Jatun Tata Kuraka (Presidente Regional), Qhara Qhara (Departamento Chuquisaca)

5 Jhonny Pocomani Medrano, Consejo de Jóvenes, Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

6 Virginia Alí de González, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ, Killakas (Departamento de Potosí

7 Noemí Mollo Huallpa, Consejo de Jóvenes, Qhara Qhara (Departamento Chuquisaca)

8 Honoria Laguna, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ, Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

9 Cristobal Huanca Salle, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ, Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

10 Mercedez Tapia Cor, Representante de comunidad Ayllus de Cochabamba (departamento de Cochabamba)

11 Fidel Condori Mitam, Parisi (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ, Qhara Qhara (Departamento de Potosí)

12 Simón Cruz Villca, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ, Jatun Ayllu Killakas Asanajaqe (Departamento de Oruro)

13 Mario Mamani Quispe, Mallku (autoridad) de Consejo Killlakas (Departamento de Potosí)

14 Valentín Sánchez Peralta, Representante de comunidad Ayllus de Cochabamba (Departamento de Cochabamba)

15 René Vargas Llaveta Jatun Tata Kuraka (presidente regional) Yampara Suyu (Departamento de Chuquisaca)

16 Damiana Condori Mamani, Representante de comunidad Charkas Qhara Qhara (Departamento de Potosí)

17 Martha Montiel, Activista de Derechos Humanos Chile

18 Juan José Sardina Espinoza, Representante de comunidad Chichas (Departamento de Potosí)

19 Pascual Copa Villafuerte, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ Killakas (Departamento de Potosí)

20 Angélica Sarzuri Gutiérrez, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ Jach‟a Suyu Pakajaqe (Departamento de La Paz)

21 Francisco Canaviri Ajalla, Autoridad de Ayllu Charkas Qhara Qhara (Departamento de Potosí)

22 Saturnino Maraza Marcos, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ Jatun Ayllu Killakas Asanajaqe (Departamento de Oruro)

23 Basilio Alconz Calani, Consejo de Jóvenes Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

24 Amadeo Mercado Cruz, Representante de Comunidad Ayllus de Cochabamba (Departamento de Cochabamba)

25 Juana Calle Apata, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

26 Felipa Vique Huari, Pasiri (ex autoridad) del CONAMAQ Chichas (Departamento de Potosí)

27 Benjamín González Barrozo, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ Killakas (Departamento de Potosí)

28 Severino Gómez Blanc, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

29 Alejandra Mamani Villca, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ Jach‟a Karangas (Departamento de Oruro)

30 Renato Sánchez, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ, Chuwis (Departamento de Cochabamba)

31 Genaro Quispe Mollo, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de Jach‟a Suyu Jach‟a Suyu Paka Jaqe (Departamento Pakajaqe de La Paz)

32 Felix Condori Blanco, Representante de comunidad

33 Feliza Ortiz Pacheco, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de CONAMAQ Sura (Departamento de Oruro)

34 Willy Poma Apaza, Consejo de Jóvenes Ayllus de Cochabamba (Departamento de Cochabamba)

35 Lucía Pari Coca, Representante de comunidad Charkas Qhara Qhara (Departamento de Potosí)

36 Eleuterio Mamani Avillo, Representante de comunidad Charkas Qhara Qhara (Departamento de Potosí)

37 Catalina Molina Conde, Pasiri (ex autoridad) de Jach‟a Suyu Pakajaqe Jach‟a Suyu Pakajaqe (Departamento de La Paz)

3. Que sucedió:

Circunstancias detalladas de la supuesta violación. Si un evento inicial llevó a otros, por favor descríbalos cronológicamente. En los casos de medidas generales, tales como legislación o políticas nacionales, indique su grado de desarrollo y cómo los pueblos indígenas han sido y serán afectadas por ellas.

a.) Antecedentes:

Primero: El CONAMAQ respaldó la 8tva Marcha de los Indígenas del Territorio Indígena Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (TIPNIS), por este apoyo orgánico fue permanentemente cuestionado por el Gobierno y sectores campesinos1 afines al mismo. El 25 de septiembre del 2011 el gobierno

1 Las organizaciones que llevaron a cabo movilizaciones y bloqueos contra la 8tva Marcha Indígena fueron: Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia (CSUTCB),

ordena la intervención policial a los marchistas en la localidad de Chaparina (Departamento de Beni).

Segundo: Por el anterior suceso, el VII

Tercero: las organizaciones matrices indígena – originarías (CIDOB – CONAMAQ) ya no respaldaron las políticas elaboradas e implementadas por el gobierno de Evo Morales, quitando legitimidad a las propuestas de ley vinculadas con los pueblos indígenas tales como: la Ley de Aguas, Ley de Consulta Previa Libre e Informada, Ley de Minería y Metalurgia, Ley de Hidrocarburos entre otras.

Cuarto: Ante la imposibilidad de cooptar al CONAMAQ, para que sus autoridades originarias respalden plenamente las políticas de desarrollo y sean militantes a críticos del partido de gobierno, Evo Morales y sus ministros se dieron a la tarea de intervenir y entrometerse en los asuntos del gobierno originario, armando grupos de choque y asaltando con la „ayuda‟ de la policía la Casa del CONAMAQ3 (Fuente: http://www.nuevacronica.com/politica/segunda-parte-cronica-del-ataque-a-la- sede-del-conamaq/)

Quinto: Se organizaron seis intentos de intervención al CONAMAQ. En el sexto intento, el 10 de diciembre de 2013 al promediar las 20:00 hrs., un grupo de personas afines al gobierno de turno y funcionarios de ministerios del Estado5, en claro estado de embriaguez y con presencia de la policía, avasallaron, de manera violenta, las oficinas del CONAMAQ. La violencia duró, aproximadamente, 5 horas dejando como resultado 5 heridos y daños de consideración en la infraestructura de las oficinas. Estas acciones no lograron su objetivo gracias a la resistencia valiente de mujeres autoridades quienes permanecieron dentro las oficinas.

Sexto: Los días 12 y 13 de diciembre del 2013 se realizó, previa convocatoria de un mes (Anexo 3), el VIII Jach‟a Tantachawi (Gran Congreso) con la participación de las 16 naciones indígenas de tierras altas. Evento donde fueron elegidas y consagradas, según normas y procedimientos propios, las nuevas autoridades nacionales del CONAMAQ, para la gestión 2014 y 2015 (Anexo 4).

La Comisión Orgánica recomendó ingresar de forma inmediata a las oficinas del CONAMAQ, encabezados por el nuevo Consejo de Gobierno, además exigió al Ministro de Gobierno el retiro de los policías que se encontraban instalados en las puertas de la sede del CONAMAQ, para desarrollar sus funciones con total normalidad y resolver las demandas de las 16 naciones indígenas. (Anexo 5)

No se pudo cumplir con el mandato de la Comisión Orgánica por la represión policial, que usando agentes químicos, dispersó la marcha pacífica de las nuevas autoridades originarias. El Ministro de Gobierno ordenó reforzar la presencia policial, con efectivos de la Unidad Táctica de Operaciones Policiales (UTOP).

Por ese motivo, el día 13 de diciembre del 2013, la dirigencia indígena instaló una vigilia en las afueras de la sede. Esta medida duró 30 días, tiempo en el que los indígenas -varones, mujeres y niños- permanecieron bajo las inclemencias del tiempo, sobreviviendo con los aportes de la ciudadanía y de defensores de derechos humanos.

Octavo: En todo momento las autoridades originarias buscaron el diálogo y acercamiento con autoridades de gobierno para levantar el cerco policial y frenar los intentos de toma de las oficinas del CONAMAQ (Anexo 6). No hubo respuestas favorables a ninguna de las solicitudes.

Noveno: De igual forma se solicitó la mediación de instituciones defensoras de derechos humanos (Anexo 7), la Conferencia Episcopal de Bolivia (Anexo 8), de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas (Anexo 9) y del Defensor del Pueblo (Anexo 10). Tampoco se obtuvo respuestas favorables.

b.) La toma de las oficinas del CONAMAQ.

Primero: El martes 14 de enero de 2014, en las Plazas España y Avaroa, aledañas a la sede del CONAMAQ, se apostaron dos grupos de personas vinculadas al partido político del MAS – IPSP. Ellos empezaron a lanzar arengas a favor del llamado “Proceso de Cambio” y de su líder, Evo Morales. En marcha se encaminaron hasta la vigilia del CONAMAQ.

Segundo: Alrededor de las doce del medio día, cuando las autoridades indígenas instaladas en la vigilia, realizaban el Primer Consejo de Consejos (Reunión Ampliada del Comité Ejecutivo Nacional), fueron sorprendidos por esa turba de personas, encabezadas por el minero Hilarión Mamani, que se atribuyeron, de forma ilegítima e ilegal, la representación orgánica del CONAMAQ.

Tercero: El grupo afín al partido de gobierno, avasalló violentamente la vigilia haciendo uso armas blancas (cuchillos, botellas, palos, chicotes), destrozaron las carpas, sillas, colchones, cocina, ollas y alimentos; insultaron, golpearon e hirieron, indistintamente, a las autoridades originarias, mujeres, niños y ancianos que se encontraban en la vigilia. Para causar mayor temor, incluso amenazaron con asesinar a los allí presentes.

Cuarto: La unidad de policías que “resguardaba” las oficinas del CONAMAQ, ante la violencia de la turba, se negó a prestar auxilio para cuidar la integridad física de los agredidos. De esta manera, por órdenes del Ministro de Gobierno, Carlos Romero, se cometió delito de omisión e incumplimiento de deberes. Por el contrario, dos policías)

Quinto: Varias autoridades escaparon de la violencia y amenazas de muerte y otras tuvieron que esconderse para resguardar sus vidas, entre ellas las principales autoridades del CONAMAQ como Felix Becerra (autoridad 2013), Cancio Rojas y Nilda Rojas (autoridades 2014). Ellos se refugiaron en el sótano de una casa vecina por más de 24 horas, privados de alimento, comunicación y abrigo. Estas autoridades fueron rescatadas por activistas de manera clandestina como en tiempos de dictadura (Fuente: http://www.bolpress.com/art.php?Cod=2014012703)

Sexto: Frente a la expulsión y persecución de las autoridades legítimas del CONAMAQ, la Asamblea Permanente de Derechos Humanos La Paz (APDHLP) ofreció sus ambientes para acogerlas. Gracias a ese respaldo institucional, reinstalaron el Primer Consejo de Consejos; ahí expresaron su rechazo a los hechos acaecidos, reafirmándose en la defensa de la libre determinación y autonomía de los pueblos indígenas (Anexo 11).

Octavo: Frente a los atropellos sufridos, diferentes organizaciones e instituciones nacionales e internacionales, expresaron su solidaridad y respaldo a la dirigencia legítima del CONAMAQ (Anexo 12).

c.) Represalias del Gobierno:

Primero: Por instrucción de Órgano Ejecutivo, el Directorio Legítimo del CONAMAQ ha sido privado de participar en el Directorio del Fondo de Desarrollo para Pueblos Indígenas Originarios y Comunidades Campesinas (FDPPIOyCC). Pese a las solicitudes para la acreditación, respaldadas por documentación, el Director Ejecutivo del Fondo, Marco Antonio Aramayo, hizo caso omiso, privándolos del acceso a proyectos de desarrollo que benefician a las comunidades indígenas de tierras altas (Anexo 13).

Segundo: De la misma forma la Ministra de Autonomías y Descentralización, Claudia Peña, pese a las solicitudes escritas que se hicieron para recuperar la personería jurídica del CONAMAQ, que se de alta graduación procedieron a abrir las puertas de las oficinas del CONAMAQ a los agresores, quienes estaban acompañados de fiscales y notarios (Fuente: http://www.bolpress.com/art.php?Cod=2014012203) encontraba en etapa de aprobación en el mencionado ministerio, no dio una respuesta favorable (Anexo 14). Actualmente no contamos con la mencionada documentación, encontrándonos negados en nuestro derecho de libre organización y asociación. Esto nos afecta directamente, puesto que no podemos acceder a financiamiento de ONGs ni de la cooperación internacional.

4. Perpetrador(es):

Información detallada sobre la persona (s) o institución (s) responsable por la violación y su relación, en su caso, con el gobierno interesado. Si las circunstancias lo requieren, dar una explicación de las razones para sospechar la responsabilidad de la persona (s) o institución (s) identificados.

a.) Grupos afines al partido de gobierno (MAS-IPSP): Hilarión Mamani, Gregorio Choque, Placido Suntura, Renán Paco, Jhonny Huanca, Carlos Copa, Anselmo Martínez, Juan Blanco, Elías Choque y Mauro Cuéllar.

b.) Servidores públicos de ministerios del Estado: Valentín Ticona, Faustino Auca, Idon Chivi, Víctor Medinaceli. Carlos Romero (Ministro de Gobierno), Alfredo Rada (Viceministro de coordinación con movimientos sociales y sociedad civil).

Por declaración pública de los mismos interventores, la independencia partidaria del CONAMAQ es un obstáculo para que el gobierno de Evo Morales elabore, apruebe, promulgue e implemente medidas legislativas en contra de los pueblos indígenas tales como la ley de Consulta Previa Libre e Informada, la Ley de Minería y Metalurgia, la ley de Hidrocarburos y la Ley de Aguas (Fuente: http://www.la-razon.com/suplementos/animal_politico/Crisis-Consejo-Nacional-Markas- Ayllus_0_1965403503.html).

5. Medidas adoptadas por las autoridades del Estado:

Si corresponde, ¿qué medidas han sido adoptadas por las autoridades responsables para remediar la situación? ¿El asunto ha sido informado a las autoridades administrativas o judiciales del Estado en cuestión?

Ante los hechos en contra del CONAMAQ, las autoridades ejecutivas y judiciales han avalado la intervención y violencia ejercida a través de sus grupos afines y de la policía. Además de deslindar responsabilidad argumentando que el enfrentamiento era entre fracciones del CONAMAQ, por tanto un problema que debía ser resuelto de manera interna entre las partes en conflicto (Fuente: http://www.bolpress.com/art.php?Cod=2014012204)

Sin embargo, el gobierno avaló a la dirigencia apócrifa tanto en espacio públicos (la celebración del Estado Plurinacional 24 de enero) como en niveles administrativos del Estado, por ejemplo se acreditó al grupo de Hilarión Mamani ante el FDPPIOyCC (Anexo 15).

El CONAMAQ presentó una querella judicial ante el Ministerio Público (Anexo 2) contra los avasalladores, misma que no tiene resultados a la fecha. Así mismo, denunció estos hechos ante la sociedad civil boliviana y las organizaciones internacionales, recibiendo amplio respaldo y solidaridad (Anexo 12)

6. Medidas adoptadas ante los organismos internacionales:

¿Ha puesto en marcha alguna acción ante otros mecanismos internacionales o regionales de derechos humanos? Si es así, ¿en qué etapa están las acciones internacionales?

El CONAMAQ no puso ninguna acción ante mecanismos regionales e internacionales de derechos humanos porque no se cuenta con recursos económico ni apoyo jurídico para realizar estas acciones.

7. Fuente: Nombre y dirección completa del pueblo indígena, organización o individuo (s) que presenta la información. Estos datos de contacto son esenciales en caso que el Relator Especial necesite aclaración o información ulterior sobre el caso. Esta información es confidencial, a menos que la fuente autorice lo contrario.

Organización: Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu – CONAMAQ. (Actualmente no se cuenta con una dirección física)

Representante: Cancio Rojas, Arkiri Apu Mallku.

——————–

Documentos del CONAMAQ, denuncias y pronunicamientos que fueron entregados al Relator de Naciones Unidas, profesor James Anaya, 26 de marzo en La Paz:

Haga clic aquí para leer documentos pdf
CONAMAQ Informe James Anaya,26.03.14

CONAMAQ,Pronunciamiento Ley Mineria Metalurgia,22.03.14[1]

<strong><em>Para escuchar lo que los líderes de CONAMAQ orgánica tienen que decir haga clic aquí para ver entrevistas</em></strong><em> </em><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpv6GCo8trYgTTxDwN2JZHNxrrKGLIuK7″><em>en video</em></a>

Police guarding MAS-CONAMAQ office (Photo © Rebecca Sommer, Earth Peoples)

Police guarding MAS-CONAMAQ office (Photo © Rebecca Sommer, Earth Peoples)