REPORT N° 64/04 PETITION 167/03 ADMISSIBILITY THE KICHWA PEOPLES OF THE SARAYAKU COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBERS ECUADOR October 13, 2004 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 19, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Inter-American Commission,” or the “Commission,” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the Association of Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and the Center for Economic and Social Rights [Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales (CDES)] (hereinafter the “petitioners”), alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter the “State” or the “Ecuadorian State”) to the detriment of the Kichwa indigenous people of the Sarayaku community and its members (hereinafter the “Kichwa people of Sarayaku” or “the Sarayaku community”). 2. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for a series of acts and omissions harming the Kichwa peoples of Sarayaku because it has allowed an oil company to carry out activities on the ancestral lands of the Sarayaku community without its consent, it has persecuted community leaders, and has denied judicial protection and legal due process to the Sarayaku community. In addition, the State has allowed third parties to systematically violate the rights of the Sarayaku community. In light of the foregoing, they claim that the State is responsible for violating the fundamental individual and collective rights of the Sarayaku community and its members, specifically the right to property (Article 21), judicial protection (Article 25), due process (Article 8), freedom of movement (Article 22), personal integrity (Article 5), personal liberty and security (Article 7), life (Article 4), freedom of association (Article 16), political participation (Article 23), freedom of expression (Article 13), juridical personality (Article 3), freedom of conscience and religion (Article 12), the rights of the child (Article 19), equality (Article 24), health and culture (Article 26, in accordance with Articles XI and XIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) under the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”). They also allege that the State has failed to comply with its general obligations to respect and guarantee the aforementioned rights (Article 1(1)) and to adopt domestic legal provisions to make them effective (Article 2), both under the American Convention. 3. For its part, the State asserts that the petition is inadmissible due to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, given that the petitioners filed a constitutional recourse ofamparo, which is not the adequate or effective remedy for resolving the alleged infringement. It should have been a remedy in the administrative disputes jurisdiction. 4. The Commission concludes in this report, without prejudging the merits of the case, that the petition is admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention and that it will continue to analyze the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 relative to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. It further decides to advise the parties of its decision and publish it in its Annual Report. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION A. Petition 5. The petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on December 19, 2003, and registered as number P167/03. On February 18, 2004, the Commission forwarded copies of the pertinent portions of the complaint to the State and requested that it submit its observations within a period of 60 days in accordance with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the 1