## Facts

- The Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku are an Indigenous community in the Ecuadorian Amazon with ancestral territory used for subsistence, cultural, and spiritual practices.
- Ecuador granted hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation rights in “Block 23,” which substantially overlapped Sarayaku territory, to a consortium led by a private company.
- The project contemplated seismic exploration using high-powered explosives and later exploitation, but Ecuador did not conduct prior consultation with Sarayaku before authorizing the activities.
- The company entered Sarayaku territory with State military or police support, built infrastructure, cleared forest, and placed explosives along seismic lines without community consent.
- Community members resisted and sought legal protection; the record included alleged environmental damage, interference with sacred and culturally significant sites, and continuing danger from undetonated explosives near community areas.
- Sarayaku filed petitions and sought provisional measures within the Inter-American system; Ecuador later partially acknowledged responsibility, while contesting the scope of violations and reparations.

## Issues

1. Whether Ecuador violated the obligation to ensure prior, free, and informed consultation before authorizing oil exploration affecting Indigenous territory.
2. Whether authorizing and facilitating the exploration activities interfered with Sarayaku’s communal property rights and associated protection of cultural identity.
3. Whether the placement and persistence of high-powered explosives and the surrounding security operations jeopardized rights to life and personal integrity.
4. Whether Ecuador failed to provide effective judicial guarantees and judicial protection in response to Sarayaku’s domestic legal actions and complaints.
5. What reparations and guarantees of non-repetition were required to remedy the violations.

## Decision

- The court held Ecuador internationally responsible for violating the right to communal property, including the associated rights to consultation and cultural identity, under Article 21 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2.
- The court held Ecuador responsible for severely jeopardizing the rights to life and personal integrity under Articles 4(1) and 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 21, due to the risks created by explosives and related operations.
- The court held Ecuador responsible for violating judicial guarantees and judicial protection under Articles 8(1) and 25, in relation to Article 1(1), due to ineffective and delayed domestic responses.
- The court ordered reparations including: removal of explosives; legislative/administrative measures to ensure consultation; publication of the judgment; a public act acknowledging responsibility; compensation; and payment of costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- When State-authorized projects may affect Indigenous territories, the State must ensure consultation that is prior, culturally appropriate, informed, conducted in good faith, and aimed at reaching agreement or consent.
- For Indigenous peoples, Article 21 property protections cover communal tenure and the material, spiritual, and cultural relationship to land; interference with culturally significant sites and practices can violate communal property rights.
- States have positive obligations to prevent foreseeable threats to life and personal integrity arising from authorized activities; serious risk can constitute a violation even without deaths or physical injury.
- Article 2 requires States to adopt domestic measures that effectively secure Convention rights; environmental permitting procedures do not satisfy this obligation if they do not ensure Indigenous consultation.
- Articles 8 and 25 require effective, timely remedies; delayed or ineffectual proceedings that fail to halt harmful activities or provide protection can breach judicial guarantees and judicial protection.
- Reparations may combine restitution, satisfaction, compensation, costs, and guarantees of non-repetition, including structural measures to prevent recurrence.

## Conclusion

The court found that Ecuador authorized and supported oil exploration in Sarayaku territory without prior consultation, interfered with communal property and cultural identity, created serious risks to life and integrity through explosives, and failed to provide effective judicial remedies; it ordered compensation and concrete measures to remove explosives, acknowledge responsibility, publish the judgment, and secure future consultation.


Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 245 (June 27, 2012)