Triunfo de la cruz

CASE 12.548

MERITS

GARÍFUNA COMMUNITY OF "TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ" AND ITS MEMBERS

CASE 12.548

MERITS

GARÍFUNA COMMUNITY OF "TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ" AND ITS MEMBERS

November 7, 2012

1. 
   On October 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the "Commission," the "Inter-American Commission" or the "IACHR") received a petition from the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization [Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña] (hereinafter "the petitioner" or "OFRANEH") alleging the liability on the part of the State of Honduras (hereinafter "Honduran State," "Honduras," or the "State") for violating, to the detriment of the Garífuna Communities of Cayos Cochinos, Punta Piedra, and Triunfo de la Cruz and their members, Articles 8, 21 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the "American Convention" or the "Convention") in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, and, as a standard of interpretation, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (hereinafter "ILO Convention 169") concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.
   

2. 
   On December 19, 2003, the IACHR decided to divide the petition into three separate parts, each referring to a separate community and its members, with a separate registration number assigned to each. The number assigned to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz was 906-03. It was declared admissible on March 14, 2006. In its Admissibility Report No. 29/06, the IACHR concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the petition and it decided to admit the complaint alleging violation of Articles 8, 21 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1 and 2 of that international instrument, to the detriment of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members (hereinafter the "Triunfo de la Cruz Community," "Triunfo de la Cruz," or "Community")¹.
   

3. 
   The petitioner alleges that, despite the numerous actions pursued, the State has not granted title in fee simple (dominio pleno) of all the Community's ancestral lands, denying recognition above all of its functional habitat. It alleges, furthermore, that even those areas for which a title deed was granted have been repeatedly invaded by outsiders and unlawfully sold by public authorities and third parties, because they adjoin the Caribbean Sea and therefore have tourism potential. For that reason, the petitioner argues that the State of Honduras has denied the Triunfo de la Cruz Community its right to the property and peaceful possession of its land, and has failed to ensure due guarantees and judicial protection.
   

4. 
   For its part, the State contends that it does not deny the rights of the Garífuna people and that this is shown by the titles in fee simple it has granted the Triunfo de la Cruz, Community and by the establishment of a set of rules to protect the territories occupied by the various ethnic and Garífuna communities. As regards the alleged obstacles preventing access to judicial organs and mechanisms, the State asserts that the petitioner has made use of domestic remedies, as shown by the records of the bodies to which it has resorted. Therefore, the State requests a statement that the human rights violations alleged by the petition did not take place.
   

5. 
   After examining the positions of the parties and analyzing the evidence submitted, and pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, the IACHR concludes in this report that the State of Honduras is responsible for violation of the rights established in Articles 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims.
   

6. 
   On March 14, 2006, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 29/06, which concluded that the petition referring to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members was admissible. The report was forwarded to the parties on March 22, 2006, at which point, pursuant to Article 38.2 of its Rules of Procedure in force at that time, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to facilitating a friendly settlement.
   

7. 
   Following notification of the admissibility report, the IACHR received information from the petitioner on the following dates: May 30 and October 31, 2006; April 20, May 30, August 17, and August 28, 2007; May 19, June 12, September 26, and October 16, 2008; May 12, May 26, and June 3, 2009; July 19 and August 6, 2010; January 4, January 13, January 19, March 7, May 2, and May 24, 2011; and March 9, 2012. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State. The State's observations were received by the IACHR on the following dates: August 10, 2006; March 8, May 14, and August 16, 2007; January 4, 2008; February 6, 2009; October 20, 2010; and February 18, March 8, May 24, August 24, and October 28, 2011. Those communications were, in turn, duly forwarded to the petitioner.
   

8. 
   During the processing of this case before the Commission, two public hearings were held and attended by both parties. The first, during the admissibility of the petition phase, was held on October 18, 2005, during the 123rd period of sessions of the IACHR². In the merits stage, a second public hearing was held on March 2, 2007, during the 127th regular period of sessions of the IACHR³. On that occasion, the petitioner submitted the testimony of three members of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community - Beatriz Ramos Bernardez, José Ángel Castro, and Jerson Selvin Benedit López- as well the expert reports of Edmund Taylor Gordon y Clarisa Vegas.
   

9. 
   On March 8, 2007, the Commission received an amicus curiae presented by The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions and Minority Rights Groups International.