Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

254 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries
IACHR applies the Convention to process it. Otherwise, the
IACHR applies the American Declaration. If the State Party
has ratified other conventions these can also be considered.
The Court’s role is to enforce and interpret the provisions
of the American Convention on Human Rights. Complaints
are not made directly to the Court. It is the Commission who
potentially forwards cases to the Court if a solution cannot be
reached.
In urgent cases, it is possible for victims to request precautionary
(or provisional) measures before the IACHR.
Contrary to Court cases, this mechanism represents an innovative
and fast way for victims to obtain help, if they need
protection from serious and irreparable harm imminently.
Nevertheless, the Inter-American system is under-staffed and
under-resourced, which can cause severe delays in the consideration
of complaints. 8
The Inter-American system of human rights is likely the
regional system that has so far shown the greatest potential
to address corporate-related human rights violations. It is
also the regional organization that has done most to recognize
and promote indigenous peoples’ rights. In 1989 the
General Assembly of the OAS asked the IACHR to prepare a
legal instrument on the rights of indigenous populations. The
declaration is still in draft form over a decade later, but this
is still further than any other region has gone with regard to
indigenous peoples. 9
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its first
case in 2001, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni v Nicaragua affirmed
indigenous peoples’ collective right to property. In its
judgement, the Court criticized the Nicaraguan government
for not demarcating the communal land of the Awas Tingni
community, and for granting timber concessions without consulting
them. In doing so they accepted that Article 21 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, where it mentioned
property, should be applied to communal property. 10
Perhaps more importantly the Court has created significant
jurisprudence affirming the requirement for FPIC. In
the November 2007 case of Saramaka People v Suriname, the