## Facts

- Colombia requested an advisory opinion under Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) concerning State obligations related to environmental protection and the rights to life and personal integrity.
- The request was prompted by concerns about transboundary environmental harm, including potential serious damage to the marine environment in the Wider Caribbean Region and resulting impacts on individuals’ rights.
- The questions focused on how Articles 4(1) (life) and 5(1) (personal integrity), read with Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect/ensure rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects), apply to environmental degradation, including beyond a State’s territory.
- The proceeding was advisory (not contentious), involved written and oral observations from States, OAS organs, and civil society, and did not concern individual victims, State responsibility findings, or reparations.

## Issues

1. Whether “jurisdiction” under Article 1(1) ACHR can extend to persons located outside a State’s territory when the State’s conduct under its control foreseeably causes environmental harm affecting those persons.
2. Whether State acts or omissions risking serious marine environmental damage can breach ACHR duties tied to the rights to life and personal integrity, and what standards follow from those duties.
3. Whether the Inter-American system recognizes a right to a healthy environment as an autonomous human right, and what substantive and procedural obligations it entails.

## Decision

- The Court confirmed advisory jurisdiction and admitted the request as seeking interpretation of the ACHR with legal relevance for OAS Member States.
- The Court recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous, substantive human right within the Inter-American system.
- The Court held that environmental degradation can violate the rights to life and personal integrity when it reaches a sufficient level of seriousness or creates significant risks.
- The Court interpreted Article 1(1) “jurisdiction” to include certain extraterritorial situations where a State exercises effective control over the activities that cause foreseeable rights impacts abroad, even without control over the foreign territory where harm manifests.
- The Court articulated interrelated substantive and procedural environmental obligations derived from Articles 4, 5, 1(1), and 2 ACHR, including in transboundary contexts.

## Legal Principles

- The right to a healthy environment is protected as a right in itself and may protect environmental components (e.g., forests, rivers, seas) as interests independent of proven individualized harm.
- States must prevent significant environmental damage by regulating, supervising, and controlling activities within their jurisdiction or control that may cause serious harm.
- In transboundary risk or damage scenarios, States must cooperate in good faith and avoid conduct within their territory or under their control that causes significant environmental damage to other States or areas beyond national jurisdiction.
- Article 1(1) ACHR “jurisdiction” can be triggered by a functional, causal link where State-controlled conduct foreseeably and directly affects rights of persons abroad.
- Preventive and precautionary approaches apply: States must act before irreversible harm occurs, including when serious risks exist amid scientific uncertainty.
- Procedural duties are required for effective protection: environmental impact assessments for activities posing significant risks, public access to environmental information, meaningful participation in decision-making, and access to justice through effective remedies.

## Conclusion

The advisory opinion established an autonomous right to a healthy environment in the Inter-American system, connected environmental harm to violations of life and personal integrity, and set out preventive, precautionary, procedural, cooperative, and extraterritorial obligations to address significant (including transboundary) environmental risks.


Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights (Colom.), Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. 2017)