Page 1

REPORT: STATE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

2019

... Defend the territory is to defend life...


INDIGENOUS TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT TEAM Ricardo Camilo Niño Izquierdo July Milena Calderón Segura Nirvana Alejandra Sinti Cardozo Nicolás Andrés Archila Ardila Johan Steveen Tribaldos Serrano Jhenifer Mojica Flórez Melina Mariño Herrera Sergio Pulido Jiménez Miguel Ángel Espitia Alarcón Yanet Cruz Briayan Yussef Celedón Quintero

Indigenous Technical Secretary CNTI Research component coordinator Communications component coordinator Analysis and monitoring component Legal component

Administrative component Information systems component Authors

Ricardo Camilo Niño Izquierdo July Milena Calderón Segura Jhenifer Mojica Flórez Melina Mariño Herrera Nicolás Andrés Archila Ardila Johan Steveen Tribaldos Serrano

Desing

Nirvana Sinti

Indigenous Technical Secretariat CNTI, 2019 The subsequent publication or the total or partial reproduction of the articles, in printed or electronic format, is authorized, provided that the CNTI Indigenous Technical Secretariat is cited as the primary source of publication. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the National Commission of Indigenous Territories of Colombia. This does not reflect the opinions of indigenous organizations and government institutions that are part of the National Commission of Indigenous Territories.

1


STATE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (2019) PRESENTATION The territorial rights of indigenous peoples have been the object of a historic struggle that communities have fought, resisting in their territories and demanding that the State recognize, respect and guarantee them. Among the most significant advances, recognition of the right to collective property over the territories ancestrally1 possessed and occupied has been achieved. However, today we are facing a generalized crisis of non-compliance with this right that exposes communities to dispossession, banishment and in that way to the risk of physical and cultural extinction. The agrarian institutionality of the Colombian State is not responding to indigenous territorial demands, and extends the response time in an unreasonable manner, with interpretations that are harmful and restrictive to the rights of the peoples and the creation of more and new procedures that obstruct this right. The ignorance of the right to the territory of the indigenous peoples implies an aggression to all their rights due to the close relationship that life of the communities has in itself with the territory, with the mother earth. Denying the recognition of indigenous ancestral territory without guaranteeing the legal security of their territories, while encouraging and promoting development agendas in their territories, such as mining, hydrocarbon exploitation and the construction of infrastructure mega works constitutes a high risk of territorial dispossession. This happens while the murders, attacks and forced displacements among other serious human rights violations against members of the communities, authorities and members of the indigenous guard increase as a result of the reconfiguration of the dynamics of political violence in the indigenous territories. In this report from the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the National Commission of Indigenous Territories (CNTI)2 we present an analysis of the current state of non-compliance of the State regarding to the territorial rights of the peoples, with the aim of alerting the public authorities, state control agencies, Public Ministry, international human rights organizations, community in general and indigenous organizations on this situation, so that together we can build alternatives that provide greater guarantees to the communities. As this report shows, we are facing an Unconstitutional State of Things-ECI (for its name in Spanish) of indigenous territorial rights, given the need to implement policies, regulatory reforms, investment projects and work plans that structurally overcome the institutional negligence of the Colombian State in this matter.

1 2

Article 85 of Law 160 of 1994, Decree 2164 of 1995 compiled in Decree 1071 of 2015. Created by Decree 1397 of 1997.

2


CONTENTS

Presentaciรณn...................................................................................................... Page 2 Introduction...................................................................................................... Page 4 I. Systematic violations of the right to collective property by the State ............... Page 5 1.1. Institutional negligence in the attention of the historical lag on the requests for formalization of safeguard titles................................................................ Page 5 1.2. Deprotection of ancestral territories......................................................... Page 7 1.3. Indigenous territorial rights crisis: injunction as an access requirement ...... Page 7 1.4. ANT systematic practices and omissions that violate rights......................... Page 8 i. Regressive interpretations and requirement of out-of-law requirements Page 8 ii. Poor Document Management........................................................... Page 10 iii. Lack of intra and inter institutional coordination................................ Page10 iv. Insufficient allocation of resources.................................................... Page 10 II. Human rights situation.................................................................................. Page 11 III. Breach of agreements made in the National Commission of Indigenous Territories.......................................................................................................... Page 12 IV. Conclusions.................................................................................................. Page 14

3


INTRODUCTION

The National Commission of Indigenous Territories - CNTI is a space for consultation created together with the Permanent Bureau for the Coordination of Indigenous Peoples (MPC) by Decree 1397 of 1997, in response to indigenous mobilizations carried out in 1996, and constitute national spaces in addition to the Human Rights Commission created under Decree 1396 of 1997 in which indigenous peoples and public authorities of the Colombian State dialogue to seek shared solutions to the problems of territorial rights and human rights that afflict the peoples. The main function of the CNTI is to arrange the way in which the Government addresses the territorial needs of indigenous peoples to advance the guarantee of the right to collective property of indigenous peoples3. The indigenous delegation that integrates this space with the support of the Indigenous Technical Secretariat monitors the way in which agrarian institutions respond to territorial demands, analyze information and reports delivered by the State and make recommendations. It also has the function of formulating public policies in territorial matters. In the development of the follow-up, research, analysis, evaluation and participant observation, the CNTI Indigenous Technical Secretariat must warn that, today, the historical debt of the Colombian State with indigenous peoples persists due to the widespread breach of territorial rights which can be summarized in two ways: i) Breach of the agreements made within the framework of the CNTI consultation exercise, and Systematic violations of the right to collective property by the State. The present analysis is based on the information on the historical territorial requests made by the indigenous peoples and communities as of October 2018 and with the reports provided on October 30, 2019 by the agrarian institutions and its objective is to inform the situations of non-compliance, turn on alarms, and call attention to the public institutions of the State in full to react to this situation, so that the guarantee of the territories of indigenous peoples is a reality and by this way protect the life and integrity of communities and their territories heavily beaten today. To protect, to respect and to recognize the territorial rights of indigenous peoples is the ideal way to protect the lives of communities and, to support the government and autonomy of the authorities, communities and indigenous guard.

3 Through the procedures of attention of the requests of constitution, extension, sanitation, restructuring, conversion of reserves to safeguards, and through the process of provisional protection of ancestral territories. As well as discuss the budget that is required to meet requests regarding indigenous communities.

4


I. Systematic violations of the right to collective property by the State By October 20184, 768 indigenous reservations had been established. However, about 900 additional applications are registered, a fact that demonstrates that not all peoples have their ancestral territories recognized or safeguarded, a law whose foundation is ancestral possession and occupation. This has been reaffirmed by both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Constitutional Court: (…) 1) the traditional possession of indigenous people over their lands has effects equiva lent to the title of full domain granted by the State; 2) Traditional possession gives indige nous people the right to demand official property recognition and registration; 3) The State must delimit, demarcate and grant collective title of the lands to the members of the indigenous communities. (…) (I / A Court HR, Xámok Kásek vs. Paraguay).5 In this way, the function of the processes of constitution, extension, sanitation, restructuring, and conversion of reserves to safeguards, as well as the provisional protection of indigenous territories is not to “grant ownership” to indigenous communities, but to guarantee the legal security of their territories through the figure of protection so that they are not disposed in the land market or adjudicated and concessioned by the State, and can fully enjoy their collective property right. For this, it is not enough that the State has adopted the aforementioned procedures, but that these must be effective because the merely abstract recognition is meaningless, and must take into account customary law, values, customs and indigenous customs6. This even entails for the State the duty to readjust its regulations and internal procedures in order to give greater guarantees. 1.1. Institutional negligence in the attention of the historical lag on the requests for formalization of safeguard titles In spite of the binding constitutional and international mandates of the Colombian State in guaranteeing the territorial rights of indigenous peoples, as of October 2018, there were 932 requests for formalization7 of indigenous reservations in process, of which: -

- 53.76% (501) of the applications are of constitution of safeguards. - 43.24% (403) of the applications are for extension of safeguards. - 2.58% (24) of the applications are for sanitation of safeguards. - 4.3% (4) of the applications do not have clear information.

The information is as of October 31, 2018, because the most up-to-date information could not be accessed. Judgment SU 383 of 2013, and Judgment T-282 of 2011 of the Constitutional Court. 6 Judgment T -153 of 2019 of the Constitutional Court. 7 The Government mainly uses the term "legalization" without knowing that the foundation of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples is ancestral possession and occupation. From the indigenous communities it is called "formalization" since it is simply the formal recognition that the institutional state makes of the territories to safeguard their legal security, since the territories exist ancestrally and belong to the guards. 4 5

5


Of the 932 applications pending, only 175 cases are prioritized within the Care Plan (2018) implemented by the National Land Agency (Agencia Nacional de Tierras, ANT), this is only 18.8% of the total requests for formalization of indigenous territories; consequently, 81.2% of the requests of indigenous peoples are part of the historical institutional lag, which is not being attended to and does not have a projected plan for its decongestion and compliance, meaning a violation of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples massive and generalized, regardless of additional requests that may have been submitted in 2019. Likewise, the information provided is neither accurate nor updated, as there is a sub-registry that arises due to the obstacles to the access of indigenous peoples to the administrative procedure developed by the ANT, due to the deficits in the conservation of information by the entity, and due to the reluctance to give full information on the cases and applications in progress, which makes it impossible to identify the total universe of cases, so that the institutional lag could be greater. In spite of the large number of requests for formalization in lag, for the National Land Agency Attention Plan - ANT in 2019 there was no budget appropriation effort appropriate to the size of the pending task, therefore, the inaction of the State in indigenous territorial matters exposing ancestral territories to an informal facilitation of land dispossession by illegal armed groups and third parties remained. After a cut of ten billion pesos8 to the 2019 investment project ‘’ Implementation of the land legalization program and promotion of rural development for indigenous communities nationwide ’’, the goals for the validity were: - 30 constitution agreements (only 6% of the degree applications submitted by indigenous communities). - 6 extension agreements (only 1.5% of the extension requests in progress). - 0 minutes of delivery of improvements for sanitation. At the budget, financial and institutional pace of 2019, the ANT only intends to meet less than 5% of the applications for the title of safeguards, and less than 2% of the requests for expansion. At this rate, it would take the Agency 21 years to attend the 501 applications for the degree in the historical lag, and 67 years to attend the 403 extension requests pending for processing. It should be taken into account that although the goal proposed by the ANT is to manage 30 applications, not all of them are finalizing their proceedings before the Board of Directors, which would imply that it would take more years to take care of pending demands. In addition to the low goals in indigenous territorial matters, the inactivity of the ANT is added. By October 2019, only an agreement for the formalization of indigenous territories had been issued by the Directing Council of the National Land Agency; This is Agreement 96 of 2019 ‘’ By which the Kwe’sx Yu ’Kiwe (…)’ Indigenous Reservation is constituted, which was attended due to a guardianship and contempt incident filed by the requesting Nasa community. Thus, it can be evidenced that the goal of “30 constitution agreements” will most likely be unfulfilled at the end of the year. At this rate, based on the annual projected goals, it would take the ANT about 17 years to meet the pending applications for qualification, not to mention new applications that are submitted onwards and the high non-fulfillment of goals. 8

Recorte aplicado en razón a la desfinanciación del presupuesto general de la Nación por parte de la ANT.

6


1.2. Deprotection of ancestral territories As for the requests for provisional protection of ancestral territories of Decree 2333 of 2014, the situation as of October 20189 was as follows: - 121 applications for protection of ancestral territories had been submitted, of which: : a. In 46.28% (56) of the applications, the file was opened and certificates of opening the file and initiating the process were issued. b. 6.61% (8) of the applications have visit records, visit minutes, and are currently in the construction of socio-economic studies. c. 0 provisional protection resolutions of ancestral territories. Consequently, after 5 years of issuance of Decree 2333 of 2014, not a single resolution of provisional protection of ancestral territories has been issued, and the measure was thought to seek and to establish an urgent precautionary measure for the protection of at-risk territories. 1.3. Indigenous territorial rights crisis: injunction as an access requirement The lag in the attention of the formalization requests is a structural problem that overcomes the temporality of the '' governments of the day '' or of the agrarian institutions, before the Colombian Institute of Agrarian Reform- INCORA, then the Colombian Institute of Rural DevelopmentINCODER , and today National Land Agency- ANT. Thus, applications have been found that are resolved in incomprehensible terms of more than 40 years10. Situation that has not been resolved through the actions of injunction presented by the different communities, because it has been insufficient for the judges to order the prioritization and progress in specific cases, because due to the precariousness of the agrarian institutionality, lack of budget, loss of files, constant changes of officials and the high number of requests, the attention of a particular case by court order results in the exclusion of another case. Thus, in order to guarantee the territorial rights of the indigenous peoples, the communities are being forced to demand by legal action (injunction) their territorial rights violated in order to achieve a response from the State; even so, more than individual actions, structural measures are required so that the response to requests for guarantees and protection of ancestral territories is resolved. In accordance with the information provided by the ANT to the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the National Commission of Indigenous Territories, within the framework of the fifth session held in Bogotรก on November 5, 2019, in writing with filing number 20195001034601 signed by the Director Ethnic Affairs Responsible for the ANT, it was reported that in terms of sentences adopted in which the Agency is linked are: 30 cases with judgments of injunction; 2 cases of

9 Through requests for information submitted and repeated to the ANT, this information has been updated without being able to obtain it to date. 10 Such was the case of the Aiwa Tuparro Nacuanedorro community. Dochama reservation case that remains unsolved.

7


justice and peace, 14 land restitution sentences (from a total of 17 sentences that have been pronounced in indigenous matters), 13 precautionary measures and 5 interlocutory orders regarding ethnic restitution (Decree 4633 of 2011); and a total of 92 cases covered by the measure of numeral 5 of article 150 of Decree 4633 of 2011. That is to say, by judicial order, the ANT is obliged to process 156 cases, that is, almost 4 times more than it planned to attend in indigenous territorial matters throughout the year 2019. Therefore, we are facing such a serious crisis of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples, that judicial sentences are insufficient to achieve effective protection. 1.4. ANT systematic practices and omissions that violate rights In addition to the structural institutional lag, on the review of cases that are accompanied by the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the CNTI, four major categories of institutional systematic practices and omissions that violate the territorial rights of indigenous peoples have been evidenced: i) Regressive interpretations and requirement of out-of-law requirements; ii) Poor document management of applications; iii) lack of intra and inter-institutional coordination, and iv) Insufficient allocation of resources. Next, the list of situations that appear within each of the categories listed: i. Regressive interpretations and requirement of out-of-law requirements - Non effective implementation of Decree 2333 of 2014. - Lack of clarity in the implementation of the Peace Agreement, which has generated double accounting processes to the extent that ordinary applications have been treated as implementation of the peace agreement, without being fully adopted the ethnic RESO. Nor is the institution clear about the functioning of the indigenous sub-account of the land fund. - Application of Decree Law 902 of 2017, instead of Decree 2164 of 1995 in PDET areas, meeting goals of both projects. - Issuance of Directives that limit the territorial rights of indigenous peoples such as Direc tive 01 August, 2017. - Non-application of international standards in the interpretation of the norms that regu late the procedures of legalization of safeguards. - Resistance to conclude the Plans of Attention. - No constitution of safeguards in discontinuous areas. - Non-constitution of colonial and republican guards by the ANT alleging the lack of regulations that clarify the legal validity of the titles. - Formalization of safeguards below the territorial claims of the communities. - Failure to comply with precautionary measures ordered in the framework of the process of restitution of territorial rights for indigenous peoples.

8


In the Procedure: - No attention to requests from indigenous communities that are not registered with the Ministry of Interior; Access to rights is denied based on an action that is not constitutive of the law. - Requirement of prioritization by the CNTI as a procedural requirement, which creates antagonisms between indigenous communities and the spaces for consultation. Therefo re, the entity is including it as a requirement for the activation of the procedure, which creates a new obstacle for the communities, which means another burden of making legal impact or enforceability. Thus, for communities that have old applications, which are in remote areas and lack accompaniment, this constitutes a barrier to access to their terri tories. Likewise, it contradicts the provisions of Article 2.14.7.3.1. of Decree 1071, where it is established that the procedure begins at the request of the community or not, indige nous organization, Interior Ministry or other entity, without prioritization. - Non-programming of the technical visit in situations of ‘altered public order’ increasing the vulnerability of communities by not advancing in the legal security of their territories. - Expiration of Socioeconomic Studies, due to: Expiration of the census, against which qualifications are required (to be carried out in Synergy format), and a term of validity of 5 years is imposed, requirements that have no legal basis. As well as the expiration of the study of titles. Criteria that have no legal basis and that generate the expansion of proce dures, leading to legal insecurity of the territories. - The concepts of the social and ecological function of the property are issued under crite ria not agreed with the indigenous peoples, ignoring their autonomy and self-determina tion, in violation of article 85 paragraph 3 of Law 160 of 1994. - Do not advance in processes that do not require land acquisition because the communi ties occupy them, or because they have acquired them with their own resources, a situa tion where the argument of the “lack of budget” is not valid. - Breach of the legal terms of duration of the procedures. - Implementation of stages not contemplated in the decrees that regulate procedures such as the concept of legal viability, technical tables, and pre-advice (informal instance prior to the Board of Directors), which are carried out after the Sub-Directorate of Ethnic Affairs carries out the draft agreement. These stages are not regulated within the procedure of Decree 1071 of 2015, so it constitutes an overload to the process, a greater possibility of delay, and a breakdown of special due process. The competence of the general legal office to review all the draft agreements that pass to the Directing Council does not apply to the case of indigenous procedures, since these are a special and differential due pro cess in which this procedural stage is not conceived. - The presentation of the agreement to the Board of Directors depends on the schedule of the sessions of the Board, it is not within the term of 1 day as established by Decree 1071 of 2015. - Submission of the formalization of safeguards has no legal basis, and generates that the guarantee of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples is subject to subjective criteria and political and economic valuation and not on compliance with regulatory requirements, as is established by law.

9


- Ignorance of ethnic and cultural diversity by not implementing the differential ethnic approach in the procedures, which can be evidenced in: staff not adequate and not trained to serve indigenous communities; ignorance of the foundation of the right to collective property to the territorial rights of indigenous peoples that is ancestral posses sion and occupation; imposition of disproportionate charges on communities for the pro cessing of their applications. - The procedure for the provisional protection of ancestral territories establishes that the demarcation of the ancestral territory is “subject to budgetary availability�, implying that the budget is not allocated to the entire process. ii. Poor Document Management - Loss of documents and files generated by the change in agricultural institutions, poor document management. - Lack of a system or tool for monitoring and traceability of the processes, which creates a deficit in coordination and information on applications intra and inter-institutionally. - Imposition of extra documentary charges to the communities that must attach the documents that the ANT misplaces on more than one occasion. iii. Lack of intra and inter institutional coordination - Disarticulation between state entities involved in guaranteeing the territorial rights of indigenous peoples. - Non-communication of applications or legalizations in progress at the request of entities responsible for allocating land or granting titles for the exploitation of natural resources, increasing the risk of dispossession or violation of ancestral territories. - Ignorance of information on applications for indigenous territories in progress between offices of the National Land Agency (ANT). - Lack of coordination for the unification of property information. - Resolutions without registration in the Public Instruments Registry Offices leading to the formalization processes of the indigenous territory being ineffective due to the ignorance of third parties or public entities. - Transfer of the burden of intra and inter institutional coordination to the community. - Concessions for mining and oil exploitation, or infrastructure development in indige nous territories. - Awarding to third parties of indigenous territories iv. Insufficient allocation of resources - Decrease in the annual budget allocation in violation of the principle of non-regressive rights. - Lack of advance in applications that do not require a budget, as in cases in which these are vacant lots or were acquired by the same community.

10


This is how the slowdown, obstacles and delays on the part of the institutions of the agricultural sector in Colombia in the attention of the requests that seek the legal security of the indigenous territories result in these procedures being ineffective, and in that sense, they generate a high risk for dispossession and constitute a systematic violation of the Territorial Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In a budgetary projection made by the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the CNTI, in front of the requests made for formalization and to resolve the totality of the existing demand within the lag, the State should appropriate 5 trillion pesos; If this figure is contrasted with the average annual budget allocation given to the ANT of 34 billion pesos, we would have to take the Colombian State 174 years to resolve the current applications pending resolution. II. Human rights situation Indigenous territories and communities are part of a whole. The existence and cultural identity of an indigenous people cannot be separated from their territory, which is why the denial of territorial rights or the lack of access to institutional procedures that protect ancestral territories implies an injury to the community and to all of its human, civil, political, economic, cultural and environmental rights. Additionally, there has been concern with an increase in the killing of members of indigenous peoples and communities in recent years. Since 2017, 158 cases of killings of indigenous people have been identified in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia11: In 2017, 38 murders of indigenous persons were recorded; in 2018, 69 cases; and so far in 2019, 51 murders have been committed. Of the 158 registered cases 133 were committed against men, representing 84% of the total cases identified, and the remaining 25 were committed against women. On the other hand, there is a high concentration of these murders in the Pacific region, the department of Cauca being the most hit by this dynamic of human rights violations, since 44% of the murders of indigenous people have been committed there (70 cases ), followed by the department of Nariño with 25 records and Valle del Cauca with 17. In the same sense, the municipalities with the highest number of murders to members of indigenous communities are Tumaco with 16 cases, Caloto with 15 and Toribío with 12. Regarding the distribution of the victims by indigenous peoples, 76 homicide cases have been carried out against the Nasa people, which represents 48% of the total murders; of the remaining cases, there were 24 murders of Awá Indians and 24 of Emberá. It is important to add that 48.7% of these attacks were aimed at indigenous leaders who exercised social, defense of the territory and human rights with indigenous communities and organizations, while 33% of those killed were community members. It should be added that the members of the indigenous guard have been subject to attacks, especially in the last year, a dynamic that has been increasing in the departments of Cauca and Valle del Cauca.

11

Observatory of Territorial Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the CNTI.

11


Finally, it has been identified that the armed groups to which the greatest number of murders have been attributed their authorship are to the guerrilla groups, especially to the FARC dissidents, followed by the public force, led by the ESMAD, and to a lesser extent, paramilitary groups. Regarding this aspect, it is important to mention that in about 70% of the cases, the perpetrators have not been identified and the armed group to which they belong cannot be determined. The foregoing shows a worrying human rights landscape in which indigenous peoples and communities are subjected daily to actions by armed groups that violate them, and to omissions and negligent actions of public institutions that do not guarantee or protect their ancestral territories. Indigenous peoples have called for the adoption of preventive, collective and proper law measures for the protection of communities, within them, of vital importance, the urgent and effective response of the agrarian institutions to the demands in territorial matters. III. Breach of agreements made in the National Commission of Indigenous Territories The Indigenous Technical Secretariat of the National Commission of Indigenous Territories (STI-CNTI) has identified that between 2009 and 2019 there were 21 sessions of the Commission and 321 agreements were signed where topics of great relevance were addressed: environment, budget for the guarantee of territorial rights, prior consultation, legalization procedures, and territorial public policy. Regarding this period, the STI-CNTI has monitored 203 agreements, which represent 63% of the agreements signed during the entire existence of the CNTI since 199612, verifying that: Regarding compliance with the Agreements, - 43% have been breached. - 19% has been partially fulfilled. - 38% has been fulfilled.

Status of compliance with the agreements veriďŹ ed by the CNTI: 2009-2019 38%

43%

FulďŹ lled

19%

Partially FulďŹ lled

Breached

Ilustration 1: Status of compliance with the 2009-2019 agreements. Source: self-made. SIMA (Information System and Agreement Monitoring))

13 It is important to clarify that these acts referred to are due to those registered, since for some years some records have not been recovered.

12


However, the agreements that are signed have a different nature as follows: - 79% deals with administrative procedures. - 14% is about technical consultation, agreements, among others. - 7% deals with structural measures.

Types of agreements signed in the CNTI 7% 14%

79% Administrative procedures Technical consultation, agreements, etc. Structural measures

Illustration 2: Types of agreements signed in the CNTI: Source: Authors. SIMA (Information System and Agreement Monitoring)

The Agreements on structural measures for the territorial rights of indigenous communities allow, - Protect financial resources to guarantee the legal security of indigenous territories. - Arrange investment projects and care plans. - Issue decrees on territorial rights of indigenous communities. - Coordinate interinstitutionally. - Build information systems. And they help solve: - Legal uncertainty about territorial rights. - Inability to guarantee the legalization and protection of territories. - Decrease in budget allocation. - Slow procedures. The commitments that show progress are those that focus on the construction of information systems and the operation of the CNTI as a space for consultation, without significant compliance in structural agreements such as those dealing with the establishment of Attention and Budget Plans, so there is no evolution in the guarantee of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples due to non-compliance by state institutions. In summary, the agreements on which there are advances are formal and procedural, but not structural, substantial or policy-making agreements whose stagnation amounts to almost half of what was agreed, thereby affecting the possibility of indigenous peoples to access to the guarantee of their territories by way of consultation.

13


IV. Conclusions

In the face of the previous territorial rights crisis of indigenous peoples that is closely related to the human rights crisis that is evidenced in the increase in the number of murders and aggressions against members of indigenous communities, we make an urgent public call to the National Government of Colombia, the Public Ministry, control entities, international organizations, human rights defenders, academia, media and members of indigenous communities to review the situation of systematic, structural and widespread denial of territorial rights of the Indigenous peoples and policies, regulatory reforms, investment plans and programs that improve this situation and guarantee the non-regressivity of the human rights involved. For the above, the declaration of an unconstitutional State of Things (ECI) in territorial matters that at the request of the Constitutional Court declares the crisis of the rights of indigenous peoples, and calls for the adoption of structural policies that put an end to the denial of rights. One of the causes that explains the institutional inability of the National Land Agency (ANT) to fulfill its obligations in terms of guaranteeing the territorial rights of indigenous peoples is the lack of budget. For this reason, we recommend that the strategic formulation of attention and decongestion of the historical lag of indigenous territorial applications be carried out in a concerted manner that allows the overcoming of the rights crisis denounced in this report in the short and medium term. Another common cause of breach of the guarantee of indigenous territorial rights is the lack of inter-institutional coordination; for this, it is recommended to activate permanently and uninterruptedly, with political commitment and decision-making capacity of the public officials delegated to the National Commission of Indigenous Territories - CNTI as the instance of consultation and monitoring in territorial matters, which can facilitate coordination between the public entities that integrate it. To protect the lives of indigenous peoples and communities, it is imperative to include within the security, protection and prevention plans the guarantee of legal security of ancestral territories in favor of threatened or at-risk communities.

14


REPORT: STATE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

“ Si sagrada es la tierra, aunque la ley no lo diga ¿No son sagrados también quienes la defienden? E. Galeano

Profile for comunicacionescnti

REPORT: STATE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES  

It consists in the analysis of the current state of non-compliance by the State against the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples. It had...

REPORT: STATE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS OF TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES  

It consists in the analysis of the current state of non-compliance by the State against the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples. It had...

Advertisement