2
especially in what refers to “Proven facts”, must include the information
necessary for the Court to adequately comply with its duty. Specifically, when a
case refers to claims over lands that are possibly inhabited by different groups of
people (indigenous or tribal groups and peasants or settlers, as in this case), the
factual circumstances should be verified, as far as possible, before the mentioned
submission of the case before the Court.
5. In this case, from the assertion of the facts in the factual framework of the Merits
Report by the Inter-American Commission the actual situation of the territory
claimed by the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz is not clear, especially
regarding third parties inhabiting the lands in dispute and the scope of this
situation, the number of said third party inhabitants, the extension of the lands
occupied by them, and the circumstances presented by them as grounds for their
presence. This situation was not clarified in the Commission’s other briefs and
interventions. This means that, in absence of other means of evidence in the case
file, the Court initially did not have enough clarity regarding the factual situation
in which the human rights’ violations object of the controversy allegedly occurred.
6. The references in the Merits Report, specifically regarding the presence of third
parties in the territory claimed by the Community, were related in their majority
to certain sales of lands to those third parties. For example, the Commission
stated in general terms that there had been a “gradual dispossession of the
ancestral lands, carried out partly by state authorities themselves and, with its
acquiescence, by individuals,”1 and more specifically indicated that “the situation
became notoriously worse with the granting by public authorities of property
deeds over areas possessed by the Community to tourism business groups and
individuals.”2 Additionally, the Commission stated that “by virtue of the expansion
of its urban area […] the Municipality transferred to individuals different plots of
land belonging to the ancestral territory of the Garífuna Community” 3 and that
“one of the greatest problems the Community currently faces is the presence of
multiple ladino or non-Garífuna people in their ancestral territory, even in those
areas granted in full ownership.”4
7. Despite these references, it was not clear what the current situation regarding
the different areas was or where the third parties and the members of the
Community were specifically settled, respectively. Likewise, from the information
provided it could not be adequately defined who the different owners and
occupants of the lands claimed by the Community were or their different realities
regarding their use and occupation.
8. In this regard, it must be analyzed that if the Court does not have sufficient
information concerning the situation in which the people involved in the facts of
the case live, it would be difficult to issue a judgment that takes into consideration
all circumstances relevant to the resolution of the issue presented. Moreover, it
is necessary to avoid, as much as possible, that judicial decisions become a seed
for social confrontation or to promote situations of conflict. As previously
indicated, judgments of the Inter-American Court try to do justice in the case
1
2
3
4
Merits Report, para. 98.
Merits Report, para. 99. See also Merits Report, para. 108.
Merits Report, para. 107. See also Merits Report, para. 123.
Merits Report, para. 142.