## Facts

- Marco Antonio Olivo Pallo died by asphyxiation during a celebration on May 9, 2010, in territory associated with the Kichwa Panzaleo people in Cotopaxi.
- La Cocha’s General Community Assembly (an indigenous authority) investigated and held assemblies on May 16 and May 23, 2010.
- The Assembly sanctioned several alleged perpetrators through measures described as restorative and communal, including cold-water and nettle baths, public shaming, community work, restrictions on participation in festivities, expulsion, public apologies, and monetary payments to the victim’s mother and for community benefit.
- In parallel, the public prosecutor initiated ordinary criminal proceedings for the killing, and a criminal judge ordered the accused to stand trial.
- Víctor Manuel Olivo Pallo (the victim’s brother) filed an extraordinary protection action challenging (1) the indigenous decisions and (2) acts in the ordinary criminal case, arguing constitutional violations, including double jeopardy and due process concerns arising from overlapping jurisdictions.

## Issues

1. Whether ordinary criminal prosecution after indigenous adjudication and sanctions for the same killing violated the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy (*non bis in idem*).
2. How to allocate competence between indigenous jurisdiction and the ordinary criminal system when the conduct involves a death.
3. Whether the sanctions imposed by the indigenous authority violated constitutional rights (including dignity and personal integrity) and, if so, what constitutional remedy was required.
4. Whether overlapping proceedings impaired legal certainty and caused impermissible revictimization of the victim’s family.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court held that no constitutional rights had been violated by either the indigenous authority’s exercise of justice or the prosecutor and ordinary criminal courts (at least through the trial-order stage).
- The Court recognized the La Cocha General Community Assembly as a competent indigenous justice authority for internal conflicts within its territory.
- The Court found *non bis in idem* not established, reasoning that the indigenous process addressed communal harm and responsibility, while the ordinary process addressed individual criminal liability for the legal good of life.
- The Court issued binding prospective guidance that cases involving offenses against life fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal justice system, even when the facts occur in indigenous territory and the persons involved are indigenous.
- The Court’s resolution was also framed as preventing renewed harm from overlapping processes, including by directing closure of duplicative ordinary proceedings in connection with this matter as described in institutional summaries.

## Legal Principles

- Indigenous authorities may exercise jurisdiction over internal conflicts within their territory under constitutional recognition of legal pluralism, subject to constitutional supremacy and human-rights limits.
- *Non bis in idem* analysis in a plural-jurisdiction setting may consider whether the two proceedings share the same protected legal interest and punitive object, not merely whether they arise from the same events.
- Indigenous justice practices remain reviewable for compatibility with constitutional and international prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; deference to communal restorative aims does not eliminate rights constraints.
- As a binding rule for future cases, offenses against life must be investigated, adjudicated, and sanctioned exclusively by the ordinary criminal system; indigenous jurisdiction is preserved for internal community conflicts not involving life-offenses.
- Constitutional remedies may account for legal certainty and avoidance of revictimization where parallel proceedings impose repeated burdens on affected families and accused persons.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the validity of La Cocha’s indigenous proceedings and found no double jeopardy violation on the record presented, while simultaneously announcing a binding rule that future cases involving attacks on life are exclusively for ordinary criminal courts, limiting indigenous jurisdiction to internal conflicts not implicating life-offenses.


Olivo Pallo v. La Cocha Cmty., No. 0731-10-EP (Ecuador Const. Ct. 2014)