REPORT Nº 40/04

CASE 12.053

MERITS

MAYA INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES OF THE TOLEDO DISTRICT

BELIZE

October 12, 2004

 

 

I.        SUMMARY

 

1.       This report concerns a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (the "Commission”) against the State of Belize (the "State" or “Belize”) on August 7, 1998 by the Indian Law Resource Center and the Toledo Maya Cultural Council (the “Petitioners”).  The petition claims that the State is responsible for violating rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (the “American Declaration”) that the Mopan and Ke’kchi Maya People of the Toledo District of Southern Belize (the “Maya people of the Toledo District” or the “Maya people”) are alleged to have over certain lands and natural resources.[1]

 

2.       The Petitioners claim that the State has violated Articles I, II, III, VI, XI, XVIII, XX and XXIII of the American Declaration in respect of lands traditionally used and occupied by the Maya people, by granting logging and oil concessions in and otherwise failing to adequately protect those lands, failing to recognize and secure the territorial rights of the Maya people in those lands, and failing to afford the Maya people judicial protection of their rights and interests in the lands due to delays in court proceedings instituted by them.  According to the Petitioners, the State’s contraventions have impacted negatively on the natural environment upon which the Maya people depend for subsistence, have jeopardized the Maya people and their culture, and threaten to cause further damage in the future.

 

3.       The State has indicated before the Commission that applicable law and the facts presented by the Petitioners are unclear as to whether the Maya people may have aboriginal rights in the lands under dispute, although at the same time it has recognized in negotiations outside of the Commission proceedings that the Maya people have rights in lands in the Toledo District based upon their longstanding use and occupancy of that territory.  Concerning the concessions referred to by the Petitioners, the State claims that it has taken steps to suspend, review and monitor logging licenses, and that there has been no oil exploration activity in the Toledo district since 1998.  The State also asserts that the Petitioners have failed to produce sufficient evidence that logging and oil concessions have caused environmental or other harm or otherwise violated any of the rights of the Maya people of the Toledo District under the American Declaration.  Finally, the State contends that the Maya people have not been denied their right to judicial protection, but rather claims that they have chosen not to pursue domestic litigation to its fullest.

 

4.       In Report N° 78/00 adopted by the Commission on October 5, 2000 during its 108th regular period of sessions, the Commission decided to admit the Petitioners’ petition with respect to the claimed violations of Articles I, II, III, VI, XI, XVIII, XX and XXIII of the American Declaration and to proceed with consideration of the merits of the complaint.

 

5.       In the report, having examined the evidence and arguments presented on behalf of the parties, the Commission concluded that the State violated the right to property enshrined in Article XXIII of the American Declaration, and the right to equality enshrined in Article II of the American Declaration, to the detriment of the Maya people, by failing to take effective measures to delimit, demarcate, and officially recognize their communal property right to the lands that they have traditionally occupied and used, and by granting logging and oil concessions to third parties to utilize the property and resources that could fall within the lands which must be delimited, demarcated and titled, without consultations with and the informed consent of the Maya people.  The Commission also concluded that the State violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article XVIII of the American Declaration to the detriment of the Maya people, by rendering judicial proceedings brought by them ineffective through unreasonable delay.

 

6.       Based upon these findings, the Commission recommended that the State provide the Maya people with an effective remedy, which includes recognizing their communal property right to the lands that they have traditionally occupied and used, without detriment to other indigenous communities, and to delimit, demarcate and title the territory in which this communal property right exists, in accordance with the customary land use practices of the Maya people.  The Commission also recommended that the State abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area occupied and used by the Maya people until their territory is properly delimited, demarcated and titled.

 

7.       In the present report, the Commission ratifies its conclusions, reiterates its recommendations and decides to make public the report.

 

II.       PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO ADMISSIBILITY REPORT Nº 78/00

 

8.       On October 5, 2000 during its 108th regular period of sessions, the Commission adopted admissibility report Nº 78/00 in which it declared that the petition was admissible with respect to the claimed violations of Articles I, II, III, VI, XI, XVIII, XX and XXIII of the American Declaration and placed itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter.  In separate notes of the same date, the Commission informed the parties that it had decided to issue precautionary measures pursuant to Article 29(2) of its former Regulations, requesting that the State take appropriate measures to suspend all permits, licenses, and concessions for logging, oil exploration and other natural resource development activity on lands used and occupied by the Maya communities in the Toledo District until the Commission had the opportunity to investigate the substantive claims raised in the case.

 

9.       By letter dated October 24, 2000, the Petitioners informed the Commission that on October 12, 2000, the State had entered into an agreement with the Petitioners and other Maya leaders in Belize entitled “Ten Points of Agreement”.  According to the Petitioners, this agreement resulted from discussions initiated by the Government outside of the framework of the friendly settlement process before the Commission.

 

10.     On February 6, 2001, the Petitioners reiterated a previous request that the Commission conduct an on-site visit to Belize pursuant to Article 18(g) of the Commission’s Statute.  In a note dated March 19, 2001 to the State, the Commission requested a meeting with the State’s representatives and the Petitioners to better facilitate a possible settlement of the case and to visit the Maya Indigenous Communities in Belize. By letter dated April 23, 2001, the State accepted the Commission’s proposal and offered May 9 and 10, 2001 as possible dates for the Commission’s visit.  In letters dated April 25, 2001, the Commission informed the State and the Petitioners that it accepted the dates proposed for the visit.

 

11.     On May 9 and 10, 2001, the Commission, through its Rapporteur for Belize, Dr. Peter Laurie, and members of its Secretariat, traveled to Belize where it held meetings, individually and jointly, in Belize City with the Government of Belize, the Petitioners, and members of some of the Maya communities.  The Commission delegation also traveled to Punta Gorda, Belize where it visited the Maya Indigenous Community of Santa Teresa as well as a logging site between Santa Teresa and Midway.  During the Commission’s visit, the State presented a written “Preliminary Response” dated May 8, 2001 to the Petitioners’ petition together with maps and other supporting documentation.

 

12.     Following its visit to Belize, the Commission informed the parties by letter dated May 25, 2001 that, based upon their discussions during the visit, it believed that grounds existed for achieving a friendly settlement in the matter.  The Commission also provided recommendations for pursuing an amicable settlement of the matter and stipulated that in the event that there was no agreement between the parties by July 19, 2001 to enter into discussions for a friendly settlement, the Commission would proceed to consider the merits of the case and issue a report.

 

13.     In a letter dated June 30, 2001, the Petitioners informed the Commission that pursuant to the Commission’s May 25, 2001 communication, they submitted to the State a proposed framework for the re-initiation of the friendly settlement process on May 7, 2001.  They also indicated that on June 7, 2001, the State responded with a counter proposal and that there had not yet been agreement on all of the terms of the framework. By note dated July 9, 2001, the State similarly informed the Commission that there had been some progress with settlement discussions between the parties.

 

14.     On July 18 and 20, 2001, the Commission met with the parties in Belize City concerning their friendly settlement negotiations in the case.  At that meeting the Petitioners and the State agreed to re-initiate the friendly settlement process under the auspices of the Commission, with the parameters of the agreement set forth in a “Framework to Re-initiate the Friendly Settlement Process” signed by the parties.

 

15.     In notes dated August 16, 2001, the Commission requested confirmation from the parties of their availability for a meeting in Belize on September 4, 2001 in order to continue discussions to implement the Framework to Re-initiate the Friendly Settlement Process.  In a responding letter dated August 24, 2001, the Petitioners requested a postponement of the September 4, 2001 meeting.

 

16.     By communication dated December 17, 2001, the Petitioners submitted their response to the State’s May 8, 2001 preliminary observations on their petition and requested that the Commission terminate the friendly settlement process that was re-initiated in July 2001 and issue a report on the merits of the case.  In a letter dated December 20, 2001, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the Petitioners’ response to the State with a request for observations within 30 days.  In a note dated March 25, 2002, the State presented inquires to the Commission as to the nature of the response requested.

 

17.     In a letter dated November 5, 2002, the Petitioners reiterated their request that the Commission adopted a report on the merits of the case expeditiously.

 

III.      POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

 

A.      Position of the Petitioners

 

18.     In their initial petition and subsequent observations, the Petitioners have contended that the State is responsible for violations of the rights of the Maya people under Articles I (right to life), II (right to equality before the law), III (right to religious freedom and worship), VI (right to a family and to protection thereof), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XX (right to vote and to participate in government) and XXIII (right to property) of the American Declaration in respect of lands traditionally used and occupied by the Maya people.

 

19.     In particular, the Petitioners claim that the State has granted logging concessions and oil concessions on the Maya lands without meaningful consultations with the Maya people and in a manner that has caused substantial environmental harm and threatens long term and irreversible damage to the natural environment upon which the Maya depend, contrary to Articles I, III, VI, XIV and XXIII of the American Declaration.  The Petitioners also contend that these measures form part of a broader failure on the part of the State to recognize and provide adequate protection for the rights of the Maya people to land in the Toledo District based upon Maya customary land use and occupancy, in violation of Articles II, XX and XXIII of the American Declaration.  Further, the Petitioners argue that the State has failed to provide adequate judicial protection through the domestic legal system for their alleged violations of rights regarding lands and resources, contrary to Article XVIII of the American Declaration, due to delays in court proceedings instituted by them.

 

1.       Factual Allegations of the Petitioners

 

20.     In support of the claims in their petition, the Petitioners have provided numerous factual allegations concerning the circumstances of the Maya people and the land and resources to which they claim rights, together with corresponding affidavit, documentary and other evidence.  These allegations relate to four main areas: the traditional use and occupancy by the Maya people of territory in the Toledo District of southern Belize; logging and oil concessions and their impact on the natural environment; lack of recognition and adequate protection of indigenous lands; and unreasonable delay in domestic judicial proceedings.

 

a.       Traditional Occupancy and Use of Land and Resources by the Maya People of the Toledo District

 

21.     The Petitioners state that people who are identified as Maya have formed organized societies that inhabited the Toledo District of southern Belize and the surrounding region long before the arrival of the Europeans and the colonial institutions that gave way to the modern State of Belize.  They also claim that among the historical and contemporary Maya people of the Middle American region encompassing Belize, distinct linguistic subgroups and communities have existed and evolved within a system of interrelationships and cultural affiliations.  According to the Petitioners, the alleged victims in this case, who are comprised of individuals who live in or are otherwise members of communities of the Mopan and Ke’kchi-speaking people of the Toledo District of southern Belize, are the descendents or relatives of Maya subgroups that inhabited the territory at least as far back as the time of European exploration and incursions into Toledo in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

 

22.     In support of their contentions concerning these and other aspects of the Maya people’s relations with the territory at issue in this case, the Petitioners refer to the writings and evidence of historians and other experts who have studied the origins, development and present status of the Maya people in the Toledo District.[2] The Petitioners also refer throughout their submissions to the 150-page Maya Atlas, which was prepared by the Toledo Maya Cultural Council and the Toledo Alcaldes Association with the assistance of professional geographers from the University of California at Berkley, and which contains detailed information on the villages and demographics of the Maya people of southern Belize.[3]

 

23.     Based upon these supporting materials, the Petitioners also provided details of the political organization, land use, land tenure and religious practices of the Maya communities of Toledo, particularly as they relate to the territory that they are said to have occupied and used for centuries.  The Petitioners indicate, for example, that under the government structures that evolved under European colonial administrations and have continued as part of the municipal system of the governance of Belize, each Maya village has an elected alcalde, or village leader, who oversees community affairs in coordination with other leadership figures and a village council.

 

24.     The Petitioners also claim that the land use practices of the Maya people are comprised of both subsistence and cultural elements that form a foundation for the life and continuity of the Maya communities.  These elements include the use of concentric and broadening zones of land and streams surrounding the Maya villages for dwelling and subsistence purposes as well as swidden agriculture, hunting, fishing, gathering and transportation activities, as well as numerous sites throughout the agricultural area and the more remote forested lands that are regarded as sacred and used for ceremonial purposes and as burial grounds.  The Petitioners claim in particular that three principal zones surround each Maya village: the “village zone” that typically extends to two square kilometers and is used for dwellings, raising fruit and other trees and grazing livestock; the “agriculture zone” extending up to 10 kilometers from the village center where crops are planted on a rotational system and agriculture practices are based on traditional management techniques that have developed from a reservoir of knowledge of the forest and its soils; and a yet broader zone that includes large expanses of forest lands and waterways used for hunting and gathering for food, medicinal, construction, transportation and other purposes.[4]

 

25.     According to the Petitioners, the customary land use patterns of the Maya people are governed by a traditional land tenure system by which Maya villages hold land collectively, while individuals and families enjoy subsidiary rights or use and occupancy.[5] This customary system exists alongside a system of “reservations” established by the British colonial administration that pertains to Maya villages and that continues to exist under the laws of Belize.[6] The Petitioners note, however, that the reservations include only roughly one-half of the Maya villages in the Toledo District and that the customary land tenure patterns of the Maya communities extend well beyond the reservation boundaries. They refer in this regard to maps within the Maya Atlas, which they claim illustrate the composite territory of traditional Maya land use and occupancy and the continuous nature of individual Maya villages of Toledo, by which the villages adjoin with each other and with other areas that are used in common by two or more Maya villages.[7]

 

26.     In this connection, in their December 17, 2001 reply to the State’s Preliminary Response to the petition, the Petitioners refer to a map provided by the State during the Commission’s May 2001 on-site visit as “graphic evidence” of the State’s failure to effectively guarantee indigenous land and resource rights in southern Belize.[8] The Petitioners note that according to this map, a majority of the lands to which the Maya communities claim rights are designated as “National land”, and that the map makes reference only to the Maya reservations that were established by the British colonial government.  The Petitioners also contend that, with its continued designation of the lands in question as National lands, the State has continued to authorize and promote development activities on the lands without agreement or consultation with Maya communities and without accommodations for Maya resource use and cultural patterns, and refer in this connection to seven additional major development activities in or near Maya traditional territory.[9]  The Petitioners suggest that these projects constitute further evidence of the State’s failure to recognize and respect the rights and interests of the Maya people in their traditional lands.  


 

b.       Logging and Oil Concessions and their Impact on the Natural Environment

 

27.     In the context of the foregoing description of the traditional use and occupancy by the Maya people, the Petitioners contend that the State has violated the rights of the Maya people under Articles I, III, VI, XIV and XXIII of the American Declaration by granting logging concessions and oil concessions on the Maya lands in the Toledo District without meaningful consultations with the Maya people and in a manner that has caused substantial environmental harm and threatens long term and irreversible damage to the natural environment upon which the Maya depend.

 

28.     Concerning logging concessions, the Petitioners argue that since 1993, the Ministry of Natural Resources of Belize has granted numerous concessions for logging on a total of over half a million acres of land in the Toledo District, including sizeable concessions granted to two Malaysian timber companies, Toledo Atlantic International, Ltd. and Atlantic Industries, Ltd.[10] the Petitioners claim that logging under these concessions is ongoing or imminent and that the areas of ten of the concessions include reservation and non-reservation lands that are traditionally used and occupied by the Maya people.[11] The Petitioners also claim that none of the affected Maya villages agreed to any of the logging concessions and that no meaningful consultations with the Maya people preceded the granting of the concessions.  Also according to the Petitioners, there is no indication that government officials considered Maya land use patterns or cultural practices in the affected areas when they granted the concessions, and no accommodations for Maya interests or rights have been made as the logging has proceeded.[12]

 

29.     In their December 17, 2001 reply to the State’s Preliminary Response to the petition, the Petitioners recognize that the State provided evidence of a process established in or about May 2001 by which the Southern Alliance of Grassroots Empowerment (SAGE) would facilitate meetings between the Forestry Department and the communities near prospective logging concessions, but claim that this process is “too little too late” and does not cure the absence of any consultation prior to the logging that already has occurred and that continues to the detriment of members of Maya communities.[13]

 

30.     Concerning the concessions for oil development, the Petitioners claim that in late 1997, they learned that the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology and Transportation of Belize had approved an application by a company, AB Energy, Inc., to engage in oil exploration activities in oil development Block 12, which includes 749,222 acres of land in the Toledo District.  The area covered by the permit is said to include land used and occupied by the Maya and to encompass most, if not all, of the Maya villages in the Toledo District.[14] The Petitioners state that the Government, citing confidentiality concerns, has refused to release detailed information about the concession, and therefore that further details concerning the concession are unclear.  According to the petition, industry practice and the laws of Belize provide that if commercially viable oil deposits are located, a contract for petroleum operations guarantees oil extraction rights, which may in turn continue for a period of up to 25 years.[15] The Petitioners therefore argue that as a consequence of the AB Energy, Inc. concession, Belize has handed over a substantial portion of Maya traditional territory to potential long term oil development and production activities, without any consultation with the Maya people and apparently without any regard for Maya traditional land tenure.

 

31.     Further, the Petitioners contend that the logging concessions have been put into effect and have caused and will continue to cause negative environmental effects, while the oil concessions threaten to cause similar damage.  More particularly, the petition states that the logging concessions cover areas of land that include critical parts of the natural environment upon which the Maya people depend for subsistence, including vulnerable soils, primary forest growth and important watersheds.  The Petitioners also claim that the logging activities have affected essential water supplies, disrupted plant and animal life, and, accordingly, affected Maya hunting, fishing and gathering practices that are essential to Maya cultural and physical survival.[16]

 

32.     In support of their arguments, the Petitioners provide examples of environmental damage caused and threatened by the concessions granted to Toledo Atlantic International, Ltd. and Atlantic Industries, Ltd. They claim, for example, that the Atlantic International, Ltd. concession explicitly allows clear-cutting for eventual conversion of the forest to commercial agricultural lands and that the Government contemplates converting all of the land in this concession to agricultural use.[17] They also state that in the area upstream from the Maya villages of Conejo and Sunday Wood, several stream beds have been choked with discarded logs and timber which completely impeded the flow of streams that the Maya depend upon for multiple purposes.[18] With respect to the Atlantic Industries, Ltd. concession, the Petitioners claim that in September 1995 that company commenced operations by using bulldozers and heavy logging equipment to clear approximately three acres of forest and to upgrade logging roads, without any prior consultation with the Maya people, and that logging has continued to disturb land used by the Maya communities despite public protests.[19] The Petitioners also claim that the concessions have yet to be logged to their full capacity and that further damage from both concessions will likely continue and expand in the future.  According to the petition, a bridge across the Moho River at the village of Santa Anna was, at that time, under construction and, when completed, will dramatically increase logging under the Toledo Atlantic concession,[20] while Atlantic Industries completed the construction of a sawmill in February 1996 without an environmental impact assessment or informing the affected Maya people, signaling the onslaught of logging on a large scale.

 

33.     In their December 17, 2001 reply to the State’s Preliminary Response to the petition, the Petitioners acknowledge that license 1/93 issued to Toledo Atlantic Industries was suspended, but claim that the new license issued to the same company suffers from the same infirmities as the earlier one, in that it was not the result of an agreement or consultation with the affected Maya communities and did not account for their property and other human rights.

 

34.     In light of the foregoing developments, the Petitioners claim that the logging activities in the Toledo District threaten long term and irreversible damage to the natural environment upon which the Maya depend.  This includes in particular top soil erosion caused when land is stripped of forest cover, which, owing to the permeability of the soil and the drainage patterns of the Toledo region, also allows the characteristics of the soil to change very rapidly and impairs the capacity of the forest to regenerate.  According to the Petitioners, this in turn would injure the rotational system of farming used by the Maya people, and could further, and possibly permanently, diminish the availability of wildlife and plant resources.  These developments could also permanently damage stream flows that are vital to water supplies, which in turn could also result in siltation threatening coastal areas, including mangroves and coral reefs.[21]

 

35.     Further, the Petitioners argue that the threat of future and greater environmental damage is intensified by the alleged inability or unwillingness of the State of Belize to adequately monitor the logging and enforce environmental standards.  The Petitioners refer in this regard to, among other materials, a 1995 report by Dr. Winston McCalla on environmental protection and natural resource management legislation commissioned by the State of Belize for its Department of Environment. Dr. McCalla’s report noted, inter alia, that management in the forest ranges was not very intensive because of a shortage of Forest Guards and other staff and therefore that “neither protection nor management of the forest can be carried out effectively.”[22] The Petitioners argue that these inadequacies in supervision and management would only compound as logging activities in the concessions increase.

 

36.     Moreover, the Petitioners argue that the oil concession granted by Belize threatens to amplify the environmental damage caused by the logging concessions.  Relying in part upon this Commission’s observations in its 1997 report on the situation of human rights in Ecuador, the Petitioners claim that in other regions of the Americas where oil development has occurred on lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, the effects of the oil activities have had a devastating impact on the health of individuals and the wildlife  and plant resources upon which they depend, as well as adverse social impacts caused by the influx of non-indigenous workers and settlers who move onto their lands in connection with the oil development activities.[23] The Petitioners assert that the threat of similar damage to the Maya is substantial, in part because other concessions in addition to that granted to AB Energy for Block 12 have been granted or may be granted in the future for oil development that would affect the Maya people.[24]   

 

c.       Lack of Recognition and Adequate Protection of Indigenous Lands

 

37.     The Petitioners also allege that the State’s practice in granting logging and oil concessions without adequate consultation with the Maya people, and apparently without consideration of their customary land tenure, form part of a larger pattern of neglect on the part of the State, whereby government officials have uniformly refused to recognize Maya rights or interests in lands on the basis of Maya customary land use and occupancy.  Rather, officials have narrowly interpreted interests in lands and resources within the State’s formal system of land titling, leasing and permitting.

 

38.     In particular, the Petitioners argue that the reservation system established by the British colonial government in Belize in the early 1900’s falls short, in both its geographic extent and its qualitative attributes, of providing recognition or adequate protection of Maya customary land tenure.  For example, according to the petition, only approximately one-half of the Maya villages, including only a portion of the villages to which the present petition relates, fall within the reservations, and further, the boundaries of those reservations remain unclear.[25] To the extent that the boundaries can be discerned, the Petitioners contend that it is apparent that the reservation areas encompass only a fraction of the land areas used by the reservation villages for cultivation and for other subsistence and cultural activities.[26] The Petitioners also argue that qualitatively, the reservation regime provides inadequate security for Maya land tenure, as lands within the reservations are deemed under relevant Belize legislation as “National lands” and are given up to the discretionary authority of government with no specific guarantees for Maya interests.[27]

 

39.     Moreover, the Petitioners provide descriptions of numerous efforts that Maya people have made for the Government of Belize to address and resolve their concerns about Maya land tenure and natural resource concessions in the Toledo District, including written correspondence and proposals, meetings with government officials, lobbying, and public demonstrations.[28]  They claim that despite these efforts, “government officials have remained entrenched in a pattern of neglect that keeps them from seriously and responsibly addressing these concerns.”[29]

 

40.     The Petitioners also note that in its Preliminary Response to their petition, the State acknowledged its admission under the “Ten-Points Agreement” that the Maya people have inhabited the Toledo District area and that they have rights to land and resources in southern Belize based upon this long-standing use and occupancy, and argue that the State should be held to that admission for the purposes of the proceedings before the Commission.[30] Further, the Petitioners take the position that the Maya have aboriginal rights to land under common law, but also argue that the domestic common law of Belize is not ultimately determinative of the existence or scope of Maya rights for the purposes of the present proceedings, which are governed by international standards to which the common law must conform.[31]

 

d.       Unreasonable Delay in Domestic Judicial Proceedings

 

41.     A further complaint raised by the Petitioners in their petition is the contention that judicial proceedings initiated by Maya communities to address their concerns have been fruitless because the proceedings have been unduly prolonged.

 

42.     According  to  the  petition, on December 3, 1996, TMCC and the Toledo Alcaldes Association  filed  a  motion  for  constitutional  redress  in  the  Supreme Court of Belize pursuant to section 20 of the Constitution of Belize,[32] naming the Attorney General of Belize and the Minister of Natural Resources of Belize as Respondents.[33] In the motion, the Applicants sought a court order declaring the existence and nature of Maya interests in the land and resources and the status of those interests as rights protected under the Constitution, as well as declarations of violations of those rights by the Government because of the licenses to log within Maya traditional lands.[34] The motion also requested that the Government be ordered to cancel or suspend the logging licenses and any other licenses for resource extraction within the lands held by Maya aboriginal rights, and an injunction was requested to restrain the Government from granting further concessions except pursuant to an agreement negotiated with and entered into by the Maya leadership.[35] 

 

43.     The Petitioners allege that the procedural history of this litigation has unfolded in a way that has led to unreasonable delay in the resolution of the claims raised by the Maya people.  In particular, they suggest that despite the existence of an order issued by the court as to the procedure and deadlines through which the litigation was to be conducted and the Petitioners’ compliance with the requirements,[36]  the Government has not complied with all of those stipulations.[37]

 

44.     In addition, the Petitioners claim that in the course of the litigation, logging has continued on the lands used by the Maya people and has had a serious impact on the environment of the region and consequently on the inhabitants of several Maya villages.  As a result, on April 17, 1998, the applicants filed a motion for interlocutory relief in which they requested an immediate injunction suspending all logging concessions within their claimed lands and an injunction against the Minister of Natural Resources restraining the Minister from granting additional logging concessions or any other concessions for resource extraction.  Despite the urgency of the matter and the existence of three affidavits filed in support of the request, the May 19, 1998 hearing of the motion was adjourned at the request of the Attorney General’s office, and as of today, the hearing had not been re-scheduled.  The Petitioners also assert that the Court has yet to take any action on the motion for interlocutory relief, or indeed on any aspect of the merits of the case.

 

2.       Legal Allegations of the Petitioners

 

45.     The Petitioners contend that the State of Belize is responsible for violations of the following human rights of the Maya people under the American Declaration, in conjunction with assorted other international instruments, in connection with each of the four circumstances outlined above: Articles XXIII (right to property), III (right to religious freedom), VI (right to family and protection thereof), XIV (right to take part in the cultural life of the community), I (right to life), XI (right to preservation of health and well-being) and XX (right to participate in government) all in relation to the logging and oil concessions granted by the government on lands used and occupied by the Maya in the Toledo District; Articles II (right to equality under the law) and XXIII (right to property) and general principles of international law concerning the failure of Belize to recognize and secure Maya territorial rights more broadly; and Article XVIII (right to a fair trial) in respect of the ineffectiveness of efforts by the Maya people to obtain domestic redress for their situation.
 

a.       Rights Connected with the Logging and Oil Concessions

 

46.     The Petitioners argue that the State’s practice in granting numerous logging concessions and at least one oil concession on lands used and occupied by the Maya people in the Toledo District have the Maya people’s right to property under Article XXIII of the American Declaration, their right to cultural integrity as reflected in Articles XXIII (right to property), III (right to religious freedom), VI (right to family and protection thereof) and XIV (right to take part in the cultural life of the community) of the American Declaration, their right to a healthy environment in connection with Articles I (right to life) and XI (right to preservation of health and well-being) of the Declaration, and their right to consultation found in part under Article XX (right to participate in government) of the Declaration.

 

47.     Concerning the right to property, the Petitioners contend that Article XXIII of the Declaration, which provides for the “right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home,” embraces those forms of individual and collective landholding and resource use that derive from the customary land tenure system of the Maya of the Toledo District.  The Petitioners emphasize in this regard that the Maya people’s customary land tenure system described in their petition, and the usages it sanctions, give rise to forms of property that are no less essential to a decent living and dignity of the home than formal State-granted property rights are for others.

 

48.     The Petitioners also note that as a former British colony, Belize is a common law jurisdiction, and assert that in the absence of domestic judicial authority to the contrary, the common law of Belize should be deemed to incorporate the common law doctrine that upholds the property rights of indigenous peoples on the basis of customary land tenure,[38] referred to by common law courts as “aboriginal rights” or “title.”[39]

 

49.     The Petitioners also base their claim of existence of Maya property rights on the content of Article XXIII of the Declaration, which they claim embraces and affirms property interests that arise from indigenous systems of land tenure independently of the common law of domestic legal systems, and which in turn are reflected in several draft and final international instruments concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, including Article XVIII of the proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,[40] Article 26 of the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,[41] and Article 14(1) of the International Labour Organisation’s Convention (Nº 169) on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.[42] The Petitioners also refer in this regard to the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination, which they claim prevents an interpretation of Article XXIII of the Declaration that would discriminate against indigenous peoples with regard to their own modalities and forms of landholding and resource use.

 

50.     Based upon these arguments, the Petitioners claim that the Maya people of the Toledo District have rights of property over the lands and resources that they have traditionally used and occupied based upon customary patterns, and that these property rights include rights of occupancy as well as rights of access to and use or ownership of natural resources.  They also argue that the State of Belize has violated the Maya people’s property rights by granting logging and oil concessions and allowing logging to proceed on Maya traditional lands without any consideration of Maya rights within those lands, without Maya consent, and without any compensation or mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the logging.

 

51.     Further, the Petitioners claim that the State of Belize is responsible for violations of the right of the Maya to cultural integrity.  The Petitioners argue in this regard that the Maya agricultural and other land use patterns are linked with familial and social relations, religious practices, and the very existence of Maya communities, and therefore implicate their rights to religious freedom, family and protection thereof, and to take part in the cultural life of the community under, respectively, Articles III, VI and XIV of the Declaration.  In support of their arguments, the Petitioners refer to the provisions of several international instruments which they claim recognize the obligation of states to protect minority groups, including indigenous peoples, in the enjoyment of all of the aspects of their diverse cultures and group identities.[43]

 

52.     In light of these authorities, the Petitioners argue that Maya land and resources uses lie at the core of Maya culture and are imperiled by ongoing and planned resource extraction activities in the Toledo District without any apparent consideration or protection of Maya cultural patterns, and therefore that the State is responsible for denying the right of the Maya to enjoy their culture and maintain its integrity under Article 27 of the ICCPR and related provisions of the American Declaration.

 

53.     The Petitioners also claim that the logging being permitted by Belize is causing substantial environmental harm, as particularized in their factual allegations, and that this harm has threatened the physical well-being of the Maya people, contrary to the right to life under Article I of the American Declaration and the right to preservation of health and well-being under Article XI of the American Declaration.  The Petitioners claim that both the proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[44] and the draft U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,[45] as well as the Rio Declaration adopted following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,[46] acknowledge the need for states to protect the natural environments upon which indigenous peoples depend, and that these norms are implicit in the provisions of the American Declaration in the context of indigenous land claim issues.

 

54.     In the circumstances of the present case, the Petitioners argue that the environmental damage caused by the logging concessions in the Toledo District have undermined Maya food sources and threaten contamination of soils and waters which would have adverse direct health consequences for the Maya.  They also claim that Belize has been unwilling or unable to enforce environmental norms against these damaging logging practices and, indeed, has actively facilitated the environmental threat, and therefore that Belize has failed to meet its obligation to guard against the degradation of the natural environment upon which Maya physical and cultural survival depend.

 

55.     Finally, the Petitioners contend that Belize has denied the Maya meaningful consultation in connection with the logging and oil concessions in the Toledo District in violation of the “right to consultation.” In particular, the Petitioners argue that the right to be consulted in a meaningful way about any decision that may affect Maya interests in lands and natural resources is implicit in the human rights provisions that protect these interests, including Article 27 of the ICCPR, the right to participate in government under Article XX of the American Declaration, and the principle of self-determination.  According to the Petitioners, self-determination is a principle of general international law that is affirmed in multiple international instruments, and at its core means that human beings, individually and collectively, have a right to be in control of their own destinies under conditions of equality.  The Petitioners argue that for indigenous peoples, this principle establishes at a minimum the right to be genuinely involved in all decision-making that affects them.

 

56.     The Petitioners also rely in this regard on Articles XIII and XVI of the proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[47] and ILO Convention (Nº 169), which they claim clarify the right of indigenous peoples to consultation and, in the case of the latter, even to decisions about resources that remain under state ownership.[48]  The Petitioners assert that the required consultation with indigenous peoples must be more than formalities or simply processes by which they are given information about development projects, but must also provide indigenous peoples a full and fair opportunity to be heard and to genuinely influence the decisions before them.[49]

 

57.     In the circumstances of the present case, the Petitioners argue that meaningful consultations with the Maya of the Toledo District have not been held in relation to the logging and oil concessions, but rather that most of the concessions were granted without public knowledge, much less in direct consultation with the affected Maya communities.  They also claim that any public meetings that have been held in respect of the concessions provided only vague and incomplete information[50] and that any attempts by the Maya themselves to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Government have consistently been rebuffed, resulting in a denial of the Maya’s human right to consultation.

 

b.       State Responsibility to Recognize and Secure the Territorial Rights of the Maya People

 

58.     The Petitioners also contend that the State of Belize is responsible for violations of the right to equality under the law and the obligation to effectively secure rights concerning the Maya territorial lands more broadly.  The Petitioners argue that the legal system of Belize and its governing officials do not recognize Maya customary land tenure as a source of property rights, and the State does not otherwise provide adequate protection for the matrix of Maya cultural and subsistence practices related to land and resources.

 

59.     According to the petition, the failure to recognize as legally valid indigenous peoples’ own systems of landholding and resource use is a form of discrimination that is prohibited under Article II of the American Declaration and contravenes the State’s obligation to adopt the legislative and administrative measures necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the Maya people’s property rights.  In support of this contention, the Petitioners refer to the work of bodies of the United Nations that have concluded that indigenous peoples historically have suffered racial discrimination and that one of the greatest manifestations of this discrimination has been the failure of state authorities to recognize indigenous customary forms of possession and use of land.[51] The Petitioners also argue that the patterns of discrimination against indigenous peoples cannot be allowed to persist in a modern world and suggest that states have an obligation to eradicate the legacies of historical discrimination through adherence to the principle of equality.[52]

 

60.     In the present case, the Petitioners assert that the Maya of the Toledo District are among the segments of humanity that have suffered this history of discrimination, and that the Government of Belize has accorded negative differential treatment of indigenous customary land tenure by maintaining an administrative and formal legal apparatus that fails to recognize Maya rights to lands and resources on the basis of customary land tenure.  They also contend that, at a minimum, the State of Belize is obligated to adopt legislation or other appropriate measures to identify the geographic extent of Maya traditional lands and specifically define the legal attributes of Maya land tenure and resource use, in accordance with Maya custom.[53]

 

61.     In their reply to the State’s preliminary response in this matter, the Petitioners also refer to the merits judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, issued on August 31, 2001,[54] and rely on several aspects of the Court’s judgment as pertinent in the present proceeding.  These include the Court’s finding that the indigenous Mayagna community of Awas Tingni had a property right founded under international human rights law over certain lands on the basis of its traditional land tenure, and that the State of Nicaragua had violated that right by failing to take measures to demarcate and otherwise secure the land in favor of the community and by granting a concession for logging on the land at issue without any consultation or agreement with the community.  The Petitioners note that the Court reached these findings despite the fact that the community did not have a government-issued title to that land, and notwithstanding the absence of evidence that the logging activity ever actually got under way on the community’s land.  The Petitioners therefore claim that the Awas Tingni case is firm precedent for the conclusion that the Maya communities have property rights over their traditional lands and that the State of Belize has violated those property rights by authorizing multiple development activities in Maya traditional lands.

 

c.       State Responsibility for Lack of Judicial Protection

 

62.     The third claim raised by the Petitioners is the contention that the State of Belize has failed to provide effective judicial protection for Maya rights, because the Maya people have attempted, without success, to obtain redress through the domestic avenues for their alleged violations of rights regarding lands and resources.

 

63.     As noted above, the Petitioners state that on December 3, 1996, the TMCC and the Toledo Alcaldes Association, as the major Maya representative organizations in the Toledo District, filed an action for constitutional redress with the Supreme Court of Belize pursuant to a procedure provided for under Article 20 of the Constitution of Belize.  The proceeding alleged violations of the constitutionally-protected rights to property and equality under the law, and requested corresponding relief, in connection with the logging on Maya traditional lands and against the failure of government officials to recognize Maya land rights on the basis of customary land tenure.  The lawsuit also included a motion for emergency interlocutory relief against the logging, and the proceedings were supported by affidavits, expert reports and other documentary evidence submitted by the applicants.

 

64.     At the time of filing their petition with the Commission in August 1998, the Petitioners indicated that over a year and a half had passed since the lawsuit was initiated and four months since the motion for emergency interlocutory relief was filed, and that the Belize Supreme Court had not yet reached a decision on the merits of the suit or on the motion for interlocutory relief.  The Petitioners have also alleged that the efforts of the Maya people have been met with dilatory tactics on the part of the government and that the Belize Supreme Court has acquiesced in these tactics, including adjourning the hearing date for the motion for interlocutory relief at the government’s urging and failing to set another hearing date or otherwise taking action on the motion.

 

65.     Based upon these circumstances, the Petitioners argue that the State is responsible for failing to provide the Maya with an effective right to judicial protection under Article XVIII of the American Declaration, which they claim requires a state to take affirmative steps to ensure that the remedies provided by the state through its courts are effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of rights and in providing redress.  The Petitioners also note that an essential element of effectiveness is timeliness, which requires that courts adjudicate and decide cases expeditiously, particularly where alleged human rights violations are ongoing and threaten to be irreparable.

 

66.     In the case of Belize, the Petitioners argue that although the Constitution of Belize provides for a judicial procedure to protect constitutional rights, that procedure has been ineffective as a means of protecting Maya rights.  They claim that despite the amount of time that has passed and the voluminous evidence that has been submitted to the Belize Supreme Court, the court has not progressed toward a determination of the rights or violations alleged by the Maya and redress for any determined violations.  On this basis, the Petitioners argue that, due to its international obligation to provide effective judicial remedies, Belize is internationally responsible for this shortcoming of its judicial system.

 

67.     On the basis of the allegations contained in their petition, the Petitioners have requested that the Commission declare that the State of Belize is internationally responsible for violations of rights affirmed in the American Declaration.  The Petitioners also ask that the Commission recommend, inter alia, that Belize take measures, in consultation and coordination with the affected Maya communities, to suspend current and future permits, licenses and concessions for logging, oil exploration or extraction and any other natural resource development within the lands traditionally used and occupied by the Maya people of the Toledo District, and to establish and institute a legal mechanism under domestic law that will result in the official recognition of and specific guarantees for Maya customary land tenure and resource use, and lead to the prompt demarcation of Maya traditional lands.

 

B.       Position of the State

 

68.     In its May 8, 2001 “Preliminary Response” to the Petitioners’ petition, the State provides observations, arguments and documentation concerning the merits of the complaints raised on behalf of the Maya indigenous communities of the Toledo District. The State first provides information concerning the chronology of events in the matter after the filing of the Petitioners’ petition.  This includes a description of the efforts to reach a friendly settlement through the assistance of the Commission.

 

69.     As with the Petitioners, the State also refers to a process of negotiation between the Government of Belize and the Petitioners that took place outside of the procedures before the Commission, which resulted in a “Ten-Point Agreement” signed by the parties on October 12, 2000.[55] According to the State, this agreement became the new basis for the resolution of the claim of the Maya people of Toledo.  The State also specifically notes that under Point 6 of this agreement, the Government of Belize recognized that “the Maya People have rights to lands and resources in southern Belize based on their long-standing use and occupancy.” The State also suggests that the Petitioners acted prematurely in moving ahead with their litigation before the Commission while these negotiations were outstanding and while the terms of the Ten-Point Agreement had not yet been implemented.

 

70.     Further, the State emphasizes as a general matter that the issue of land and resource use in Toledo is of extreme complexity for Belize, as there are at least four clearly defined ethnic groups in Toledo and more in the country as a whole.  According to the State, this kind of ethnic diversity in such close proximity makes the discussion and negotiation of issues along ethnic lines extremely sensitive.  The State refers in this regard to the principle of equality enshrined in Article II of the American Declaration, and asserts that this principle dictates that Belize consider the interests of all of its citizens and take a balanced approach to the resolution of the Maya, maintaining at all times its neutrality as the representative of all Belizeans.[56]

 

71.     With respect to the specific issues raised by the Petitioners before the Commission, the State expressed its hope that the issues could be resolved through negotiations between the parties, but, if those negotiations proved unsuccessful, reserved the right to fully argue the merits to the case before the Commission.

 

72.     In this regard, the State suggests that the issue of whether the Mayas of Southern Belize have aboriginal rights in the area remains unclear.  The State expressed its agreement with the Petitioners’ proposition that Commonwealth jurisprudence that would be either binding or of significant persuasive influence on the Courts in Belize has recognized the existence of “aboriginal rights”, but claims that there is difference of opinion between the parties on the precise elements of the test required by law.  In particular, the State asserts that four criteria are necessary for the establishment of aboriginal title: 1. that the applicants and their ancestors were members of an organized society; 2. that the organized society occupied the specific territory over which they assert the aboriginal title; 3. that the occupation was to the exclusion of other organized societies; and 4. that the occupation was an established fact at the time sovereignty was asserted.[57] The State contrasts these criteria with those it suggests are advocated by the Petitioners, namely 1. the existence of a culturally distinctive community or society with historical origins that predate the effective exercise of sovereignty by the Government or its colonial precursor; and 2. customary or traditional land tenure or resource use that can be identified as part of the cultural life of the community or society.[58]

 

73.     Moreover, the State argues that it is not clear whether the facts asserted by the Petitioners are sufficient to establish that they have satisfied the elements required for aboriginal rights to be recognized.  In this regard, the State contends as follows:

 

31.       Equally unresolved is the question whether or not the facts as asserted by Petitioners are sufficient to establish that they have satisfied the elements required for aboriginal rights to be recognized.  Further to the affidavits submitted on its behalf, the Government draws attention to the dates of foundation Maya Atlas [sic] of the villages alleged to be affected by the acts and omissions complained of. Medina bank – 1989; Golden Stream – 1970; silver creek 1969; Jordan – 1980; Na Luum Caj – 1986; Jalacte – 1972; San Vicente - 1986; Santa Teresa – 1933; Sunday Wood – 1983; Boom Creek – early 1990; Santa Anna 1973; Midway – 1992. With the exception of San Antonio and San Pedro Columbia claimed to have been founded in 1850, all the villages in this case were founded in the 1900’s some as late as 1992.

 

32.       It is one of the fundamental arguments of the Government that the dates of foundation of most of the Mayan villages illustrates a significant break in the continuity of occupation of the area over which title is asserted.  Furthermore, when those dates are compared with dates for foundation for other non-Mayan villages in the area such as Barranco it becomes evident that the Maya did not occupy that region to the exclusion of other organized societies.  It is the Government’s position that in the absence of continuous exclusive occupation the claim of the Petitioners cannot be established. 

 

33.       Finally, the issue of possible extinguishment of any existing aboriginal rights by certain acts of the Sovereign over British Honduras is also unresolved.[59] [footnotes omitted]

 

74.     Based upon these submissions, the State argues that any decision on the merits of the petition must first answer the question of whether the Maya of Toledo have aboriginal rights in the lands in the Toledo District, and that any decision on this issue must be taken based on the common law and all relevant domestic legislation.

 

75.     Specifically with respect the two main logging concessions mentioned in the petition, license 1/93 granted to Toledo Atlantic International Ltd.[60] and license 6/95 granted to Atlantic Industries Ltd.,[61] the State claims that the newly-elected government in Belize suspended both licenses on October 9, 1998, and that on October 13, 1998 the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment appointed a multidisciplinary committee to review these licenses.  According to the State, the Committee found that the logging practices under license 6/95 were strictly monitored by the Forest Department and could not be severely criticized, and therefore that it was recommended that Atlantic Industries Ltd. could continue to operate under the supervision carried out by the Forest Department. Atlantic Industries Ltd. was subsequently notified on March 1, 1999 that its operations under license 6/95 could resume immediately. 

 

76.     Also according to the State, the Committee found that the operations of license 1/93 issued to Toledo Atlantic International Ltd. negatively impacted on the social and environmental well-being of various rural communities in the Southern Toledo District, and that supervision by the Forest Department of the operations relating to the license was very inadequate.  The Committee also found that the person in authority who caused the license to be issued did so in a “clandestine” manner and deliberately ignored the expertise of the other skilled professions in the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as in other relevant Government offices.  As a consequence, the Committee recommended immediate revocation of the license.  Because the ultimate responsibility for the issuance of the license rested with the entity issuing it and the company had made considerable investments with regard to the license, and because the members of the Review Committee expressed a willingness to participate in the negotiations of any such new application, the Committee recommended that Toledo Atlantic Industries Ltd. be allowed to negotiate a new license. 

 

77.     The State indicates that the Cabinet of Ministers approved the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee and license 1/93 was revoked on March 2, 1999.  As of the date of the State’s preliminary response, no new application for an equivalent license had been approved for Toledo Atlantic Industries.  At the same time, two smaller interim licenses had subsequently been approved in favor of Toledo Atlantic Industries, license 45/99 covering 4,700 acres and license 17/00 covering 5,400 acres.[62] The State claims that the Forest Department imposed a pre-requisite that Toledo Atlantic Industries Ltd. provide evidence of consultation with the communities likely to be directly affected by the proposed interim licenses, and that in both instances, the company complied with this requirement by submitting to the department signed memoranda of understanding between themselves and the communities.  The State also claims that license 45/99 was never worked and that license 17/00 represented a transfer of license 45/99 to another area.  According to the State, the company stated that the reason for the abandonment of license 45/99 related to difficulties obtaining community support, in the context of discussions in which TMCC was said to have participated.

 

78.     With regard to oil exploration, the State indicates that the AB Energy Contract was separated and is now divided between two companies, US Capital Ltd. and Island Oil Ltd. The State also indicates that there has been no actual oil exploration activity in the Toledo District since the original AB concession was issued in 1998 and that, as of the date of the State’s response, there continued to be none.

 

79.     Based upon these circumstances, the State argues that the Government has taken into account the concerns of the Belizean public, including the Maya people of Toledo, with regard to logging activity in the Toledo District in a way consistent with a respect for those concerns.  The State also contends that its ongoing efforts to negotiate a resolution to the Petitioners’ concerns should be considered.  According to the State:

 

The attempts at putting in place the proper mechanisms to secure the interest of all Belizeans with regard to land matters, evidenced by the pattern of behavior described above are significant.  Their significance should not be slighted especially when it is considered that Belize is a small, recently independent, developing country, still grappling with the remnants of a colonial system not appropriately suited to local realities.  It is unrealistic to expect that an issue that has at its core, control of resources in a significant portion of the country will be resolved quickly and without difficulty.[63] 

 

80.     With respect to the Petitioners’ allegations concerning the effects of the logging and oil exploration concessions, the State contends that the Petitioners have failed to provide evidence that the actions and omissions complained of have, in fact, resulted in the alleged violations of their rights to life, property, cultural integrity, a healthy environment, consultation or equality before the law.  In particular, the State argues that the Maya people continue to live in the villages that they have occupied since the dates of foundation recorded in their Maya Atlas and have never been removed or threatened with removal.  The State also asserts that the Maya people continue to live in their customary way, including continued governance by the traditional Alcalde system, which the State claims is the only ethnic group whose traditional system of governance has been incorporated into Belizean law.  In addition, the State claims that it has on repeated occasions issued leases to inhabitants of the villages for farmland surrounding the villages, and that issues of health, education and social welfare in Maya Communities are accorded the same treatment as those of other Belizean communities.  The State also argues that the Petitioners have failed to establish any real interference with the Maya’s customary way of life by the acts and omission complaint of, particularly in view of the fact that there has been no actual oil exploration in the Toledo District.

 

81.     Further, the State asserts that the Petitioners have provided insufficient evidence of decreased availability of farmland or that the Maya people are unable to hunt or gather medicinal plants or otherwise provide for themselves in the traditional way. Similarly, the State claims that there is no evidence that it is likely that resources will be so diminished in the immediate future as to make it impossible for them to survive in their customary way, that sacred grounds have been violated or ancestral relics destroyed, or that any Maya person has died or is likely to die as a result of the actions complained of. According to the State, the three affidavits of the Mayan villagers raising allegations of insufficiency of natural resources and submitted in the motion for constitutional redress and to this Commission are “anecdotal at best,” represent the experiences or perceptions of specific individuals, and cannot be taken to represent the status quo for all Mayan villages in the area claimed.

 

82.     Concerning the Petitioners’ allegation of a violation of the right to judicial protection, the State contends that the Petitioners have chosen not to pursue domestic litigation to its fullest, and argues that it has always been open to the Petitioners, in accordance with accepted practice in the region, to petition the Chief Justice of Belize for an early hearing to be given to their case on basis of the urgency of the relief claimed.  The State notes that the Petitioners were, as of the date of the State’s preliminary response, availing themselves of domestic avenues for resolution by engaging in negotiations with the State on the basis of an agreement signed by both parties.

 

83.     With regard to the delay in the domestic proceedings, the State indicates that this is not a unique occurrence, and that in recent endeavors to improve access to justice in Belize, the Government of Belize has recognized that the civil justice system suffers from systemic delay.[64]   The State also argues that several steps have been taken to improve the situation, including appointing three new judges to the Supreme Court and the appointment by the Bar Association of Belize of a committee chaired by the Chief Justice to review the existing rules of procedure with a view to reducing unnecessary delay and expense.

 

84.     In summary, the State contends that the concerns raised by the Petitioners about land use and tenure, negative environmental impacts, and greater participation in government, are not uniquely Maya issues, but affect the entire country and more specifically the traditionally less developed Southern Region.  The State also asserts that the Petitioners must assume responsibility for the impact of their own agricultural practices on the environment, including their traditional “slash and burn” method of agriculture, the unsafe use of pesticides by farmers, and deforestation caused by small farming, which the State claims has been equivalent to the forest cover lost to logging.[65] The State therefore contends that the Petitioners have failed to show that they have suffered any harm that uniquely impacts on Maya life and culture, and have equally failed to establish that they have suffered any harm or change of circumstances as a result of the actions complained of so as to amount to a violation of their human rights.  To the contrary, the State argues that it has taken significant steps to address the concerns raised by the Petitioners and to recognize the indigenous populations of Belize as unique sectors of the population and their status as equal citizens in the eyes of the government.  These steps are said to include a recent amendment to the Constitution of Belize to explicitly recognize in its preamble that “the People of Belize – [. . .] require policies of state [. . .] which protect the identity, dignity, and social and cultural values of Belizeans, including Belize’s indigenous people.”[66]

 

IV.      ANALYSIS

 

A.       Application and Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

 

85.     The Petitioners in the present case have alleged that the State of Belize is responsible for violations of the rights of the members of the Mopan and Ke’kchi Maya people of the Tole