Diagnosis on the Right of the Indigenous Association in Venezuela

DIAGNOSIS ON THE RIGHT OF THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA

Laboratorio de Paz Technology and Research on Peace Culture

Translation: RubĂŠn Romero <ruben.romero.lozano@gmail.com>

DIAGNOSIS ON THE RIGHT OF THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA During the period between October 2013 to February 2014, Laboratorio de Paz conducted an exploratory study on the situation of Venezuelan indigenous movement from the perspective of the human right to association. The data and conclusions presented are: 1) monitoring of policies that affect the right of indigenous association and the trajectory of the organizations of indigenous peoples from the collection and analysis of legislation, newspaper sources and textual material (both print and on-line) produced from governmental agencies or actors of the indigenous movement since 1998; 2) Fieldwork in four different regions of Venezuela with indigenous populations; 3) Interviews with 24 representatives of indigenous organizations and other organizations allied with the indigenous cause, environmentalists and academics, including civilian leaders linked to indigenous representative organizations, 4) Review of academic literature on the Venezuelan indigenous movement.

Indigenous peoples have always had their own traditional organizations that have regulated internal relations in the community. Our study, understood as “indigenous movement”, the associative efforts to interact with the non-indigenous world for the enjoyment of their rights, in that way “Indigenous movement” is also related to the concept of “social movement”: aware collective actions, whose impact in case of “victory” or “defeat”, transform the values and institutions of the society. (Castells, 1999, p.25) The first part of this document will be a general description of Venezuelan Indigenous people and of the background of the indigenous movement in the country, up to the period ranging from 1998 to 2013, under the management of the “Bolivarian Government”. Then, we will address the situation of the indigenous movement in three states: Amazonas, Bolívar and Zulia, as a result of fieldwork, and then relates to the conceptual and normative framework which regulates the right to indigenous association in the country. Then the diagnosis is made based on the principles of the right to association, where there is an extensive section devoted to the figure of the indigenous community councils and other emblematic cases of violation of the right of indigenous association. Subsequently we will make an assessment of the National Indigenous Council (CONIVE by its acronym in Spanish) for its importance as a national organization; in the final section we will move to the general conclusions made.

We want to thank all the people who offered us their time and expertise in this research. Some testimonies asked us to keep its identity in reserve.

(1) Lusbi Portillo, general coordinator Homoetnatura

(2) Meeting Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon

01

(3) Planting trees in La Universidad de los Andes (ULA) in memory of Chief Sabino Romero and Jose Maria Korta

02

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF VENEZUELA According to the results of the 14th national census of population and housing, made in 2011 and disseminated by the National Institute of statistics (INE by its acronym in Spanish) in 2013, Venezuelaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s indigenous population consists of 724.592 people, (2.8% of the total population of the country.) While the indigenous population is distributed throughout the country, 8 are the States that most indigenous communities concentrate: Amazonas, Anzoategui, Apure, BolĂ­var, Delta Amacuro, Monagas, Sucre and Zulia. The 61.2% of the total indigenous population is concentrated in Zulia State, while it is the Amazonas State

that has proportionally more indigenous population compared to the non-indigenous population, a 53.7%.

In Venezuela, there are a total of 51 indigenous tribes, being those who have many members Wayuu/Guajiro (57.1%), followed by Warao (6.7%), Karina (4.7%), Pemon (4.1%), Jivi/Guajibo (3.3%), Kumanagoto (2.9%) and Anu/ Paraujano (2.9%). The majority (97.9%) of the Wayuu, the tribe that concentrates more than half of the indigenous population of Venezuela, resides in the Zulia.

03

HISTORY OF THE VENEZUELAN INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT

Records about the history of the Venezuelan indigenous movement, their career and their demands, are scarce. There is no official or private documentation center specialized in the matter of indigenous peoples in Venezuela. The few indigenous organizations that have a physical working space, suffer the lack of a historical archive of the conflicts in which they have been involved. Therefore, their recovery depends on largely oral history told by those who have staged it. Several of the facts and the data for the reconstruction of the chronology were taken from the book Indigenous movement in Venezuela by Nemesio Montiel, text edited in 1982, one of the few systematic bibliographic records found in the investigation.

For the anthropologist Nemesio Montiel the first milestone of the national indigenous movement in Venezuela is in 1947 with the creation of the Indigenous National Commission, at the beginning of the so-called “adeco triennial”. In the regional event, highlights the beginning of the Indigenous Board of mutual assistance in Maracaibo in 1940, whose first activities focused on the defense of evictions from lands occupied by indigenous people in different areas of the city. 4 years after, the authorization for the foundation of the Neighborhood Ziruma as indigenous settlement occurs. After 1958, were created the revolutionary Junta of Ziruma, the Committee to improvement of Ziruma and the Committee of Defense of the Guajiro, (the latter in 1965), which later would become the Zulia Indigenous Association. Between the 10th to October 12th, 1969 the “First Convention of Professional, Technical and Guajiro Leaders” was held in the city of Maracaibo. Montiel qualifies this event as the date of the launch of the great national indigenous movement because of the criticisms that were made on the Official Indigenous movement, attended by representatives of other ethnic groups of the country and the participation of teachers and students of the School of Sociology and Anthropology of the UCV. A second round would be held in December 1971.

In 1970, at the initiative of the Association Pro-Venezuela was held in Caracas the “Congress of Indians of Venezuela”, in the words of Montiel it was an important opening for the national indigenous leadership that so far remained disjointed and without any communication. Two years later, from 14 to 17 April 1972 is the second Congress, which develops the idea of an instance of indigenous struggle, both nationally and in the regions or federal agencies. Indigenous participants

included Leonardo Tamanaico (Karina), Isaías Rodríguez (Maquiritare), Carlos Figueroa (Pemon), Andrés Romero (Guahibo), Renato Montiel (Guajiro), Jorge Ramón García (Yaruro), Antonio Maquerán (Arekuna), Lucila Clarín (Guahibo), Conrado Moraleda (Warao), Hernan Carnico (Baniva), Carlos Páez (Yaruro), Oberto Noeli Pocaterra (Wayuu), Alberto Herrera (Wayuu), Udón Semprún (Wayuu) and Nemesio Montiel Fernández (Wayuu).

As consequence of this event began to create indigenous federations in different parts of the country: Zulia (July 1972), Anzoategui (November 1972), Apure (February 1973), Bolivar (September 1972), Amazon (October 1972) and Delta Amacuro (March 1973). Once constituted the regional federations were summoned an Assembly of boards of Directors in Caracas, which was made on April 6, 1973, whose purpose was the creation of the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Venezuela, as national coördinator of all things related to the Venezuelan indigenous movement.

According to the testimonies collected in our study, the country’s indigenous organizations would have also emerged from the convergence between the social sciences (Anthropology), and political ideology (Marxism). José Quintero Weir, researcher and university professor, from ethnic Anu, opined: indigenous organizations that have emerged have not been the product of the community’s own interpretation. Somehow it was an external view, and in that we have to recognize our self-criticism. We were interpreting the indigenous reality and the need to create an organization and not the need for the community to produce a political organization.

Why? Because communities have their own political organization, its own way of resolving and acting politically and even the relationships of power within the same community. (J.Quintero, personal interview, January 30, 2014).

Another milestone of this trend can be at the Cultural Congress of Cabimas against Dependency and Neocolonialism, conducted in December 1970 by organizations of the left, close to the armed struggle in the city of Cabimas, Zulia. Shortly afterward one of the organizers of the event, Esteban Emilio Mosonyi anthropologist attends the Symposium inter-ethnic friction in South America, held in Barbados in January 1971, with the participation of concerned anthropologists to denounce actions affecting tribal groups in the jungle areas of South America. Result of the event is the Declaration of Barbados: by the liberation

04

of the indigenous, responsible on the situation of the South American Indians to national Governments, religious missions and anthropologists. The Declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples of the Americas have full-fledged and full capacity to create their own historical alternatives of liberation (First statement of Barbados, 1971, p.2).

Taking the Declaration of Barbados as a guide for action, begin to take shape in Venezuela “indigenous liberation.”

Quintero Weir recalls: The first time that it was a match we did in 1972, the first Indigenous Congress in Paraguaipoa and people who came together there: Waraos, Pemon, yekuanas and so-called wayuus.” Esteban Emilio Mosonyi, Arcadio Montiel and I set up this meeting, traveling across the mountains invite to the Guaraní, the Barí and of course Mosonyi with their relationships in the eastern part in Bolivar and Amazonas. It was a national meeting which aimed at precisely the encounter, the recognition of different peoples on the basis of the creation of organizations, not to a national organization even though that was the perspective, but rather to urge domestic organizations in the communities. (J.Quintero, personal interview, February 6, 2014).

After the event, there are two organizations in Zulia State: the Indian Federation of Venezuela (IVF) and the indigenous Council of Zulia. The first joined the Venezuelan party Copei, one of their spokesmen Nemesio Montiel (wayuu), first Indian anthropologist graduated from the University of Zulia (LUZ); and the second to the Acción Democrática Party, whose representative was the first wayuu who did a master degree, and who is also a teacher in La Guajira, Germán Pocaterra, which in 1947 was Governor of the Páez District and passed a decree to forbid the indigenous in the area (Adolfo Pérez, 2006). The first divisions of this organization product arises a third: the movement Indian by the national identity (MOIN), closer to the Marxist left, and that it would be led by the Wayuu Noheli Pocaterra.

At the other end of the country, in 1973, the Federation Bolivar (FIEB), which, until today, the indigenous organization remains the country’s oldest indigenous would be created. The IBF made for its work a territorial division of the State into 8 sectors, which still remains. Each sector is represented by ‘Captains General indigenous’: Sector 1 the umbrella; 2 Kamarata; 3 Uriman; 4 Cuyuni; 5 Kavanayén; 6 santa Elena; 7 bags; and sector 8 Wonken.

Between 1st to December 4, 1977 the creators of the “Aquiles Nazoa” people power movement organized the Meeting for the Defense of the Popular Culture in Barquisimeto. The indigenous representatives proposed the establishment of a National Assembly of indigenous peoples, who ends up doing 6-12 October 1979 in Paraguaipoa, Zulia State. The theme was: memory and

count of indigenous struggles; Defense and projection of indigenous cultures as Nations; Preservation and revitalization of the linguistic, cultural, scientific, literary, aesthetic and technological heritages; Participation of indigenous peoples in the exploitation of the natural resources that are in their regions; Self-determination and bilingual cultural education; Conceptions of the ethnic Indian and indigenous generic in the Latin-American civilizing process and the formation of current nationStates. In parallel, an indigenous meeting was held in Amazonas on October 12 of that year, after meetings of the national indigenous Confederation with the President Luis Herrera Campins. Both events on the same day were no coincidence. According to Nemesio Montiel from Amazon accused you of being an official event, while to the Paraguaipoa pointed to him as divisive, destroyer of the federations and organized by people outside the ethnic groups.

Both efforts continued leaving an organizational balance. As a follow-up to the Paraguaipoa event is organized the first Congress Warao, from 10 to 12 October 1980. In 1981 was approved the Decree 478 on regionalization and formation of the committees of citizen participation. The Confederation of indigenous peoples of Venezuela welcomes the same and organizes meetings in different areas of the country, being the first on June 06, in the Zulia.

It wasn’t until 1983 when creating the national organization that has survived to the present day: the National Indian Council of Venezuela (CONIVE). In this regard, Nohelí Pocaterra says: We spent years next to the Indian Movement national identity by promoting events, complaints, trying to push through a law in Congress. We never did it. (…)

Subsequently and then travel across the country for more than ten years, the indigenous movement and its stillnascent organizations, formed the CONIVE (Pocaterra, 2009).

Other of the protagonists of the process, Iris Aray, relates: This encounter of indigenous peoples during the years 70 and 80, was what allowed us to move forward continuously and systematically, first, towards the establishment of the Organizing Committee of CONIVE, integrated voice for indigenous peoples; and then, the realization of the first Indian National Congress of Venezuela in 1989, when did the National Indian Council of Venezuela (CONIVE) (Memory of the Indigenous Resistance, 2009, p.51).

The founding Charter of CONIVE established among its objectives was: Strengthen and develop a proper policy with the various Indian movements and Allied movements that are active

05

in the prospects of an own and independent project front parties and the State, private enterprise and other foreign interests, in order to strengthen the profile of CONIVE. The undersigned, members of the “Commission Organizer CONIVE” were: Jorge Pocaterra (Wayuu-MOIN), Luis Mendoza (Pemon - movement Indigenous of Guayana), Javier Armato (Yukpa-ACIPY), Isoris Tovar (Pumé-ASOCREP), Iris Aray (Karina-KONICA), Jesús Jiménez (Warao-FUIW).

The pressure of the organized indigenous movement began to generate responses from the National Executive.

In August 1989 at a meeting held among indigenous representatives, State Governors and the President of the Republic Carlos Andrés Pérez agreed the realization of regular meetings between the Governors and the indigenous leaders of the different communities, in order to examine and find solutions to the problems posed by the communities at the local level. (Provea, 1990).

In 1991 CONIVE discussed a proposal that amend article 77 of the Constitution. The suggested text stated The State recognizes the existence of the indigenous ethnic groups and its inalienable right on the grounds that live permanently, which used for productive activities and environmental resources for their well-being and cultural development, according to their customs and traditions.

They are autonomous in their organization, work regime, exploitation of the Earth and sustained usage of forests and wildlife, within the framework established by this Constitution (May 1991).

However, this proposal was not carried in the national Parliament. Another draft law introduced in 1989, concerning rights of indigenous peoples was the law of communities, peoples and indigenous cultures by the former MP and University Professor Alexander Luzardo.

Another requirement was the claim that the State will adhere and ratified Convention 169 of the ILO indigenous and tribal peoples.

1992 became a year of visibility of the situation of the indigenous communities in the country, so are they commemorated the 500th anniversary of the arrival of the Spaniards in the continent. However, the official acts took a dramatic turn during its development led by the own President in the town of Zulia State Paraguaipoa, were killed two Wayuu and wounded other five indigenous troops of the presidential guard and the DISIP officials. A second fact, known as the Haximú massacre, occurred in July 1993 when at least 16 indigenous yanomami were killed by illegal miners “garimpeiros”. Other similar situations of produced 16 months later, when four indigenous Yanomami appeared murdered and subsequently in the Wayumi community, four hours from Haximú. (Provea 1993). At the end of 1993, under the auspices of the Office of the attorney general, was held the 1st International Congress of indigenous human rights, through the

indigenous national prosecutor’s Office. There were about 250 representatives of communities from across de country participating in the activity.

In 1992 the Amazonas Federal territory went on having the figure of Amazonas State. December 06 deputies elected for the first time for the Legislative Assembly of the State, which had the character of Constituent General Assembly, assuming among other tasks of the Constitution state. Despite the high concentration of indigenous people, mechanisms were established to avoid the participation of them in the discussion, which resulted in a territorial division that did not correspond with the geographical and cultural distribution of the communities themselves.

In the protest movement that was generated against the exclusion of the indigenous population, was created the Organization Regional of the indigenous peoples of Amazonas (ORPIA) on 12 September 1993, at a meeting held in the communal house (the hut) elementary school of large pariah of Amazonas State. Indigenous journalist Juan Contreras summarizes the process of mobilization: indigenous organizations introduced a complaint in the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ). There were several sentences. The last was asked to the Legislative Council of Amazon make a new law of territorial Division, that until today was not fulfilled. (J. Contreras, personal interview, November 16, 2013) In December 1993 Venezuelan army troops killed two Guarani indigenous and wounded two more, in an incident related to the seizure of wood for communal use. This event, known as the events of Martínez, forcing the then President Rafael Caldera, to commit themselves to develop a program of social and economic aid which will cover the “agricultural” ethnic groups of the country. (Provea, 1994).

In 1996 a total of 15 indigenous organizations and human rights drew up an alternative report on the implementation of the Venezuelan State to the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. After analyzing the situation in the country, the UN Committee expressed concern over the absence of mechanisms to compensate the victims of racial discrimination, mostly indigenous. Therefore it recommended that the Government adopt adequate measures to provide health care services to indigenous communities; strengthen the system of bilingual education, extending it to the entire indigenous population; and it requested information on the implementation of the agrarian reform act and the violence against indigenous people following conflicts over land. (Provea, 1996).

The President of the Republic, Rafael Caldera approved on 14 May 1997 the 1,850 presidential decree, collecting the legislation Plan and use regulations of the forest reserve of Imataca. Indigenous people of the ethnic Warao, Arawako, Karina, Akawaio and Pemon, whose survival would be seriously affected by the opening to the mining, live in different areas of this forest reserve. Various indigenous

06

organizations of Bolivar State introduced a recourse to annul to the CSJ, which the Board of Directors of Justice issued precautionary measures, prohibiting the granting of mining and forestry concessions in Imataca. That same year the FIEB begins to question the implementation of the agreement with Brazil for the installation of a system of power transmission between the two countries.

As a mechanism of protest began, staggered, to interrupt traffic on the highway to Brazil during the months of July and August 1998. On 26 August 1998, within the framework of a demonstration, there was a violent confrontation between the community of Mapauri

(4) Indian Mural in Puerto Ayacucho Airport

(Great Savanna) and the National Guard. (Provea, 1999).

In July 1998 the Pemon people prevented, at the height of the task force 85 the Guardia national in San Isidro, kilometer 88, Bolivar State, the carriage of a stone of 12 meters cubic and 30 tons of diameter, which had been extracted from Canaima National Park by German national Wolfgang Von Schwarzenfeld, in order to make a sculpture in Germany. Stone, called Kueka-grandmother, of great importance in the cosmology of Pemon people. However, despite the mobilization, the Government authorized his transfer to Germany.

(5) National Meeting for the Demarcation of Indigenous Territories, Universidad de Los Andes, December 2013

07

(6) Indian petroglyph, playing in the restaurant â&#x20AC;&#x153;La pusanaâ&#x20AC;?

Puerto Ayacucho

INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT AND BOLIVARIAN GOVERNMENT In February 1999, the same day that Hugo Chavez took the post of President of the Republic issued a decree calling a referendum to call a national constituent Assembly (ANC).

The 25, April 1999 approved such a call with 92,17% of the reported votes, to create a new legal framework that allows the effective functioning of a social and participatory democracy.

Indigenous organizations began to prepare to participate in the ANC. Workshops on constitutional reform in Maracaibo were held on 6 and 7 February 1999. On Amazon, the Office of human rights of the Vicariate Apostolic of Puerto Ayacucho organized between the months of February and March several workshops on human rights and Constitutional Assembly. A Constituent Pieria Committee (Carpi), which held meetings in the region, was established in that State.

(Van Cott, 2002). CONIVE work was fundamental in this process. Being the first time that he received support from the State, through the direction of Indigenous Affairs (DAI) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and justice, was awarded an office to work, as well as technical and logistical support.

General coördinator of CONIVE, José Poyo, encouraged the Organization to disseminate the importance of the constituent Assembly for indigenous peoples, between local and regional organizations to promote the discussion of proposals, with the aim of achieving a consensus from below. Although CONIVE had requested 7 delegates, on 10 March 1999 President Chavez appointed 3 indigenous delegates from 131 posts of representation in the ANC. Between 21 and 25 March of that year CONIVE organized a national indigenous Congress, in Ciudad Bolívar, where delegates representing three different geographical regions were elected: Noelí Pocaterra (Wayuu) by the West; José Luis González (Pemon and member of the FIEB) for East and Guillermo Guevara (Jivi and ORPIA Coordinator) to the South. CONIVE - outside but close to the traditional parties - organizations objected to the representation. In mid-June the National Electoral Council (CNE) called for new elections - who threw the same result- legitimizing CONIVE as the national indigenous organization of greater representatives and legitimacy to lead the process of re-election of three indigenous to the ANC representatives. In the general elections of delegates to the ANC, made on 25 July 1999, were elected two indigenous activists more: Atala Uriana Pocaterra Wayuu (who had been appointed Minister of the environment, the first Indian to occupy a post in the Cabinet) to Zulia; and Liborio Guarulla, Baniba, linked to ORPIA and regional coördinator of the cause R in Amazon.

After consultations at various levels, 5 and 6 September 1999, a Conference was held in Caracas, where 300 indigenous representatives approved a joint proposal.

During the deliberations of the ANC Venezuelan indigenous organizations carried out a strategy of pressure that included the dissemination of their demands and mobilization, when maintained a permanent presence in the courtyard of the building of the Assembly national with their songs, dances and traditional costumes (Van Cott, 2002). Not without controversy, most of the proposals were adopted November 3, 1999, with 128 votes in favor and 3 abstentions. The indigenous incidence resulted in approval in the new national Constitution of Chapter VIII concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, with 8 articles that recognize its social, political and economic organization, cultures, uses and customs, languages, religions, habitat and indigenous land rights that occupy including demarcation; the right to the use of natural resources; maintain and develop their culture and ethnic identity; right to health and traditional medicine; promote their own economic practices; protection of the collective intellectual property of knowledge, technologies and innovations; and their right to political participation. For its part the twelfth transitional provision establishes a two years for the completion of the demarcation of the indigenous habitat. For the lawyer and ally of the indigenous cause Luis Bello: The 1999 Constitution establishes one of the most broad and extensive indigenous rights in Latin America and makes a fairly advanced recognition, developing the main requirements of the own indigenous peoples and organizations; including not only the material aspects of your life, but also most of the essential constituent features of their existence and cultural specificity. (Bello, 2011).

On March 17, 2000 the President Hugo Chavez visited the community of San José, in the Sifontes municipality of the Bolivar State in order that the indigenous people adopted a document of acceptance of the electric running towards the Brazil. The people gathered there did not sign the document.

The President of FIEB, José Luis González declared the members of the Executive not sent in advance the document to indigenous, whose traditional political and social organization gives a total respect of consultations with the communities, to reach a decision by consensus basis.(Provea, 2000). After the meeting a joint Commission between representatives of the State and indigenous captains of industry, which

08

resulted in the document points of understanding between the National Executive and the indigenous communities of the Bolivar State for the continuation of the work of system of transmission of electrical energy in the southeast of Venezuelacomplied. On 26 April 2000, Captain General and indigenous, gathered in the community of Kumarakapau agreed to support the points of understanding. However, three communities raised its disagreement: San Rafael de Kamoirán, San Juan and Mapauri, which was expressed by its captains Silviano Castro, Darío Castro and Melchor Flores. Between 17 and 19 May 2000, 60 members of the Pemon people were in Caracas reaffirming its position of rejection of electrical lines. On May 18, 2000, indigenous representatives introduced an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ). As the work continued, on August 23, 2000 prevented the realization of the same community Mapauri Crus within its territory. On 14 September 2000 reported that 7 towers of electrical lines had been knocked down. On December 27, 2000 it was reported that army forces had harassed the chieftain Silviano Castro House, and the next day would have beaten the Indian Juan Ramón Lezama. The laying electric despite the protests took place.

After being constitutionally guaranteed their right to political participation, CONIVE postulated candidates to the National Assembly (AN), in the first elections in which participated in July of 2000, CONIVE obtained three deputies and a Deputy in the National Assembly, Noelí Pocaterra (Wayuu) owners, José Luis González (Pemon) and Guillermo Guevara (Jivi) and Rafael Suárez (Wayuu), José Poyo (Karina) and Carlos Pérez (Pumé). In December of the same year obtained 7 legislators directly elected by CONIVE and two directly elected by organizations as a member of CONIVE ORPIA; 8 Councilors directly elected

by CONIVE, 14 in other organizations that integrate CONIVE and some Councilors who have allied with the Council.

Between 24 and 25 May 2002 was the fourth Congress of CONIVE, where arose the need for restructuring in order to insert it into the new constitutional legal framework in force in the country.

As a result of this legislation, indigenous communities around the country began to carry out their own processes of demarcation of territories, for example the Conference from March18 to 21 of 2002 in Puerto Ayacucho, or work started in Bolivar with Yekuana and Sanema peoples.

On December 08, 2001, after 27 years of promoting the project, the indigenous movement achieved that Chief Guaicaipuro (symbolic) remains were buried in the national pantheon. That same year, protest actions were carried out when four indigenous Pumé were assesinated on January 16, 2001, allegedly by employees of farms in the Sector Riecito-Capanaparo (Apure State).

Another case occurred in Bolivar State, an Army

Sergeant killed the indigenous Pemón Miguel Lanz on 28 May 2002, by the defence of its territory.

Subsequently, on November 13, 2003 the President Chavez, in a ceremony held in Lagunillas municipality, announced the tripling of the exploitation of the coal in the Sierra de Perijá, Zulia: We are giving you Carbozulia now recovered and showing a phenomenal success, because it has signed a contract to exploit coal mines, it was braking since 1993 and many of the obstacles had been overcome. Some foreign companies will start in the first quarter of 2004, generating work here, of course.

The decision generated a process of mobilization of the three communities affected by the project: Wayuu, Bari and Yukpa. On March 31, 2005 is carried out in Caracas a national March against the exploitation of coal, which concluded at the Palacio de Miraflores, with an attendance estimated of 3,000 people.

On September 17, 2004 a new decree for the Imataca forest reserve was approved, which grants of 2,700,000 for mining and forest exploitation. Italo Pizarro, indigenous Pemon, leader of the FIEB, declares that more important than the holding in Imataca, gold, profits and so-called investments in health and education, are their areas of residence, of fishing and hunting which would be destroyed.

(May 2005). This time, the decision would not generate the process of demonstration and protest that occurred in 1997.

On December 08, 2005 approving the organic law of peoples and indigenous communities (LOPCI), which provides for the establishment of the National Institute for indigenous peoples (INPI). Prior, on October 12, the head of State to the date, Hugo Chavez had pointed out that the new ethnic groups, 120 organizations that belong to the Evangelical Council of Venezuela (CEV) were imperialists who should leave the country. The President of CEV Samuel Olson, reported that his missionaries reach around 80 and include preachers, their wives, their children, as almost all live in family. (Provea, 2006). Allies of the indigenous cause that they had denounced the effects of cross-cultural influence because of the presence of these religious preachers in areas inhabited by little-contacted indigenous.

During the year 2006, CONIVE organized its Congress, where the new authorities were elected. On the other hand, indigenous and four miners were killed, on September 22, 2006, in the Raúl Leoni municipality, an indigenous zone of Turumban sector, by soldiers attached to the theatre of operations 5.

That same year during the parliamentary elections were elected four indigenous deputies, three owners and an alternate. On October 1st, was held the first national encounter of indigenous Councillors of the 8 States with

09

indigenous populations. This year, it was also approved the organic law of the Municipal public power. Three indigenous deputies to the National Assembly were actively involved in the discussion for the drafting of this law. Thanks to this were able to incorporate the concept of “indigenous communes”.

At the beginning of the year 2007, -January 08- was announced and launched the Ministry of the Popular power for indigenous peoples (MINPI). This organism created 8 territorial vice-ministries for inter-agency concrete actions, in order to move forward in the comprehensive care of the native peoples. These viceministries are: indigenous in community territory of urban areas; Mountains, hills and Ríos of the Amazon jungle; the valleys, sheets and Tepuyes; Delta, mountains, coasts and mangrove; Savannas and Morichales Llaneros; the Peninsula, desert and water; the mountains and Andes; and streams, forests and streams of the Amazon. The President appointed the Yekuana Nicia Maldonado (Ex President of CONIVE) official in charge of the new governemtal agency.

On September 13 of the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of the human rights of the indigenous peoples after 20 years of effort; 143 countries voted in favor, among whom was Venezuela.

At a meeting held in Ciudad Bolívar, on15 and 16 of September 2007, representatives of the ethnic groups Pemon, Karina, Arawak, Akawaio, Cumanagoto, Warao, Piaroa, Jivi, Bare, Piapoco, Yekuana, Baniv a, Curripaco Yeral and Warequena, gathered with members of the AN, representatives of the FIEB and CONIVE to carry out analysis of 33 articles proposed to reform the Constitution of 1999. Leaders and indigenous representatives manifested themselves in relation to it and argued: We are going to vote yes on the passing Referendum to reform the Constitution.

(Provea, 2007). Days later, on September 19, promoted by the Executive was held the I Congress of anti-imperialist indigenous peoples of Latin America, conducted in the municipality Gran Sabana, Bolivar.

During 2008 was established the union of CONIVE together with 10 regional indigenous organizations, legislators and members of the Legislative Councils and indigenous Councillors, to deal with two proposals to reform of the LOPCI, presented by the Minpi and by the Ministry of the environment, through the enabling act, allowing the Executive to change or enact laws without being discussed in the AN. The reform proposals were intended: a) modify the terms “habitat and indigenous lands” by “communal territories”; b) remove existing indigenous organizations and replace them with the “communal councils”; c) changes to the procedure for the demarcation of indigenous lands; among other things clear and openly violate the rights of indigenous peoples, especially their lands, habitat and exploitation of natural resources, creation of areas under the regime of Special Administration (ABRAE)

on indigenous habitat, among others. Thanks to the union in rejection of these claims, which also violated the right to participation and prior and informed consultation, the reform was stopped, because it was clearly a way to undermine the rights achieved. (IWGIA, 2009) On March 10, 2009 was held the demarcation of the Yukpa-Bari lands in Zulia. With participation of the involved actors. Both the indigenous communities and the producers of Machiques cattlemen Association (Gadema), coincide on the need to reach agreements that guarantee the rights of all. They regretted the absence of representatives of the National Commission of demarcation. (Provea, 2010).

In 2010, the indigenous organization Kuyujani, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations of environmentalists and the Universidad Nacional Experimental de Guayana, UNEG, denounced the displacement of indigenous communities of Bolivar State, the destruction of ecosystems, and the complicity of the military responsible for protecting the area, unless the Government implemented real and effective measures, sustained in time to prevent serious impacts on indigenous communities and over the environment.

An important legal decision was made on November 30, 2010, when the political-administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court (TSJ) issued a ruling in favour of the indigenous people Bari of the Sierra de Perijá and the BOKSHIBIKA Civil Association - representative body of the Bari of Bokshi - community which recognizes that the implementation of the right to collective ownership of indigenous lands is in arrears, and affirmed the obligation of the National Executive to demarcate those territories by setting an important legal precedent.

A second important decision occurred in 2001 with the Presidential Decree # 8631 on November 29, 2011 where officially recognizes the Indigenous University of Venezuela, located in the Tauca, Bolivar State.

In January 2012 the military prosecutor’s Office arrested four indigenous captains from La Paragua for this case: Norberto PINTO, Captain of the KurunPupai community; Julio GONZÁLEZ, Captain of Yuwaei Merú; Ramón MUJICA, of Karunken, and Alexis ROMERO, the first indigenous leader of the Musukpa community. All were being charged for crimes of robbery of the national armed forces property and the Sentinel attack.

With the re-election for 2013-2019 of President Hugo Chavez, among other changes in his Cabinet, announced the appointment of Aloha Núñez of the Wayuu people as new Minister for indigenous peoples instead of Nicia Maldonado, postulated as the PSUV (PARTIDO SOCIALISTA UNIDO DE VENEZUELA) candidate to be the Governor of Amazonas State, where the indigenous Governor Liborio Guarulla was re-elected.

10

On March 03, 2013 men on two motorcycles murdered the chieftain Yukpa Sabino Romero, when he was on his way to vote in the election of the greatest chieftain in the community of Chaktapa. The crime closed dramatically a cycle of struggles of yukpa peoples in the requirement of demarcation of land and rejection to the exploitation of coal in their territories.

(7) Orinoco River up to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Camp Orinocoâ&#x20AC;?, Amazon

(8) Detail of the roof of a stilt at the headquarters of the Regional Organiza- (9) Mural painter Guarulla Liborio in the main church of Puerto Ayacucho tion of Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon (ORPIA)

11

DIAGNOSIS ON THE RIGHT OF THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA

Peace Laboratory conducted visits to three states with the largest indigenous population in Venezuela: Amazonas, Bolivar and Zulia where we could see the current status of organizations.

In the case of Amazonas state, we find a process of re-organization of the indigenous movement based on their traditional groupings. A human rights activist based in Puerto Ayacucho described trends that currently exist within the indigenous movement in the state. The Regional Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon (ORPIA) represents one. A second by the Bolivarian Indigenous Confederation of Amazonas (COIBA), founded in 2004 and formerly linked to Patria Para Todos Party (PPT) and now the Progressive Movement of Venezuela (MPV) whose regional leadership is exercised by Governor Liborio Guarulla. A third would be called Cacique Waikae’puru Movement, linked to Nicia Maldonado and MINPI. This organization has been trying to replace the indigenous organizations. Also was made an attempt to sell this movement as a group that includes us, but they are all ministry employees without work base (Amazonas Anonymous, personal interview, November 15, 2013).

ORPIA held its Sixth Congress on September 15 and 16, 2013. The organization’s statutes establish the performance of a congress every three years, where the board is renewed. Between V and VI Congress, however, there was a space of 7 years, where a board of directors, which is also part of Mimpi, delayed the renewal of the authorities. 351 delegates attended the event from 17 indigenous grassroots organizations from 14 peoples or tribes of 7 municipalities of Amazonas state. The new Board of Directors for the period 2013-2016, was composed of José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal (Curripaco people) in the General Coordinator; Henelda Rodríguez (village Piapoco) as Vice-Coordinator; Alcaly Azabache (Bare people) in the Area of Human Rights; Education and Indigenous Health; Javier Matabanchoy (Cabildo Inga) in the Department of Science, Technology, Research and Documentation; Guillermo Arana (Wotjuja people) in the area of Planning, Environment and Biodiversity; Elsa Deremare (Bare people) in the Department of Youth, Women and Family; María Elena Tandioy of

Matabanchoy (Cabildo Inga), in Socioeconomic and Cultural development area. Also 7 Sectorial Coordinators for the municipalities of the region were chosen.

Subsequently Orpia and the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon COIAM held a day of annual planning in Puerto Ayacucho on 14 and 15 January 2014, where they decided as work priorities the following topics: Demarcation, education, health, illegal mining and extractivism.

On the situation of the organization, Gregorio Mirabal, the newly elected coordinator said: ORPIA is in intensive care (G. Mirabal, personal interview, January 17, 2014).

Some of the founding members now aim to restore the autonomy of the organization and the fighting spirit of their early days. This group rejects the displacement of traditional organizations for community councils, the paralysis of the demarcation of indigenous territories and the actual closing of channels of participation for Aboriginal representatives, while they recognize the Bolivarian government, and especially the late President Hugo Chavez included indigenous rights in CRBV and other regulatory frameworks. Levels of co-optation, suffered for several years, conditioned the indigenous agenda, under other political and electoral agenda of the government. After the approval of all indigenous laws, we believed that only supporting the government, our rights were going to materialize. And we demobilize. (G. Mirabal, ibid).

ORPIA not have stable income for its operation: In collaboration with partner institutions in this new stage we do not even have an account number at the bank. Formerly when ORPIA was in its best had agreements with Unicef, Embassies, NGOs and National Institutions. That is what we are trying to resume. The financial system is undergoing a review. (G. Mirabal, ibid).

ORPIA remains part of CONIVE and try to position their demands at the national level within the organization. It also works with Wataniba organization, a pro-indigenous NGO based in Caracas and Puerto Ayacucho. Also on the legal part, are supported by RAMA: Amazon Legal Network, this network is integrated in Venezuela by Wataniba

12

organization and the Working Group of Indigenous Affairs ULA-Merida. Other organizations supporting ORPIA are UNICEF, Vicariate of Puerto Ayacucho, Radio Fe y Alegría, Provea and Laboratorio de Paz. ORPIA has had a nonpartisan political organization aside, for the promotion of indigenous electoral candidates for regional elections: the Multiethnic United Peoples Party of Amazonas (PUAMA). Gregorio Mirabal tells its origin: ORPIA, by statute had banned political campaigning.

In the 97-98 had no deputy to defend them, our struggles were from outside. We analyze that and we concluded that we had to have indigenous representatives in the organs of power. Thus was born the Puama. It was a success in practice, because we represented an electoral platform. Then CRBV gave us that right. Most people behaved in the traditional way and that really hurt us, repeating the vices of politicians. In this new stage we are going to participate but not as before, since we have experience, more tied to the organization, to grassroots struggles. In the last election we said “We do not want to remain appendix to you” and were crushed because nobody liked it. We are trying to rebuild the political organization also (G. Mirabal, ibid.).

In the elections held in November 1998, the PUAMA, in partnership with the PPT, won a deputy to the Legislative Assembly of Amazonas state. The deputy was Liborio Guarulla (Baniva). In 2000 accomplishes two indigenous municipalities: Manapiare and Autana, National Deputies (Guillermo Guevara), regional legislators, Indigenous Parish Councils and Boards. They also supported Liborio Guarulla in the first election where he was elected governor, in 2001 PUAMA became the second party in providing the most votes.

A second associative space, unlike ORPIA, consists of the COIAM, a casual and informal setting of space for the meeting and discussion -they are not self-recognized as an organization-, emerged in the debate of the demarcation process in Amazonas. According to the lawyer Luis Bello, a member of the organization Wataniba ORPIA was in a process of crisis. The COIAM coincides with the process of organizing the Yanomami people. It is a coordination for common problems that has advocated for collective problems (L. Bello, personal interview, November 15, 2013). On the relationship between the two bodies of work, COIAM expected to strengthen, not replace, the role that, in the opinion of all, should be borne by ORPIA. The COIAM account, in turn, is plenty with the energy of new indigenous organizations that provide a new air movement.

After a meeting held on July 18 to 20, 2011 in the Parima community, inside the heart of the forest, 2,500 Yanomami agreed to the creation of the Yanomami organization “Horonami”.

In the case of Bolivar State, Laboratorio de Paz found a situation of division within the Indigenous Federation of Bolivar State (FIEB), where two groups are presented as “the federation”. The FIEB consists of Piaroa, Yekuana, Jivi and Kariñas peoples, despite the presence of Pemon majority. For details of this situation, Laboratorio de Paz conducted interviews with five representatives of the two sectors in the town of Santa Elena de Uairén. However, after a long journey by land from Puerto Ordaz, they refused to talk with the argument that they would not talk to an NGO from political opposition to the government.

Therefore, the Pemon journalists, environmental activists and indigenous lawyers performed the description of the regional indigenous movement. All of them are currently disconnected from FIEB, as Alexis Romero.

An activist for indigenous rights and FIEB adviser, told us the current process of the organization, this is a narrative of great value due to its proximity to the evolution of the conflict, which quote extensively: The FIEB is one of the first indigenous organizations in the country that allowed organizing the Venezuelan indigenous movement from the regions. In effect, created in the 70s was the basis for the formation of CONIVE. 1989 was a year of great struggles of the indigenous movement, whose emblematic case was the stoppage of electrical transmission line, in times of the presidency of Rafael Caldera II. Here the first cracks appear.

First, coalesced who sought a negotiated settlement with the government and on the other, those opposed to any dialogue. Finally won the first option. Later, with Chavez’s presidential campaign, the FIEB almost entirely yielded to his project. Only a small group would stay in the periphery but waiting for a better time to ram the organization.

After José Luis Gonzalez, Juvencio Gomez was elected president. Although they came from the same line of indigenous base, had disagreements after José Luis was elected to the National Constituent Assembly.

Jose Luis Gonzalez and Yaritza Aray were the visible figures of FIEB. Currently both are deputies: one in the National Assembly and the other in the Legislative Council of Bolivar municipality.

After Juvencio Gomez, Italo Pizarro occupied the presidency, and with great difficulty he carried out the self-demarcation and the Reform of the Statute of FIEB. He faced much opposition from those who managed before him, but with a lot of intelligence, based his actions on the basis of structures that are part of FIEB. That gave him a lot of legitimacy in the Pemon movement. He tried to give a more organizational and less partisan profile to FIEB, and he did it substantially, despite the reluctance of those who were into partisan activity.

13

Conflicts of FIEB with Nicia Maldonado made the Minister permeate the organization, exploiting internal discontent. Minister Nicia Maldonado attempt to establish a parallel organization. While her actions did not succeed, the division was a fact. Obviously the conflict has been increasing since each sector has aligned the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and MUD (Bureau of Democratic Unity). Today, Alvaro Fernandez of the FIEB current team and Director of Indigenous Autonomous Institute of Bolivar State, attempts to find common ground between one or another trend. “(Anonymous Bolívar, personal interview, February 10, 2014) As described in the previous testimony FIEB is divided into two, and both are presented as the real Indigenous Federation of Bolivar. The crisis had its peak in 2011, when they must renew their managers, so they call for two different meetings where elections are conducted in parallel.

The so-called “Indigenous Federation of Bolivar I” is composed by José Gregorio Cascante (President), Alvaro Fernandez (vice president); Andres Solis, Secretary General (Pemon); José Gregorio Rodríguez, secretary (Wotjuja); Inés Figueroa, Treasurer (Pemon) and as vocal Cornelio Garcia (Yekuana) and Maria Yanez (Karina).

According to press reviews the election was held on May 13th 2011 with “1,500 original inhabitants, legitimate authorities, delegates representing local organizations of indigenous peoples and communities of Bolivar State, located in the municipalities Cedeño, Sucre, Heres, Angostura, Sifontes, El Callao, Piar and Gran Sabana, were responsible for electing the new officers of the organization, having been previously summoned by the current Executive Council, the XI Regional General Assembly, held at the Centro Cultural and Ethnic the Churuatas “. Cascante is the first president of native FIEB kariña population because its four predecessors belonged to the Pemon people. With this election, we demonstrated that FIEB does not belong only to one of our peoples, but to all our indigenous brothers, it seems to reflect the ethnic conflict internally in the organization for its hegemony.

The Federation has the backing of the governor of Bolivar state and uses the official headquarters in Ciudad Bolivar.

At the meeting on May 13th 2011, agreed a ban on Indigenous Peoples Minister Nicia Maldonado because she has been the protagonist of serious allegations about division and interference in indigenous peoples customs and traditions according to the press release.

that we are a chavista Federation. And we are. We are revolutionaries, committed and defenders of the rights of our brothers in Bolivar state, but also we have been chosen with a vote and we have the support of indigenous communities and their leaders “- The Vice president of Fieb, Alvaro Fernandez called “impostors” and “parallel Federation” to “the little group” that aims to blow themselves as the representatives of the indigenous population in Bolivar. “Everyone here knows that the so-called federation is fraudulent and illegitimate.”

According to Alvaro Fernandez, revolutionary work that until now has been achieved since Sifontes under socialist lines is “sabotaged” by the opposition in the area. “They needed a Cacique who sold himself and got it,” reiterated (El Luchador, 2013).

The so-called “Indigenous Federation of Bolivar II” consists of Jean Carlos Velázquez Palacio, President (Pemon), Luis Gaitan, Vice President (Piaroa), José Luis Jara, secretary general (Pemon), Joel Perez, secretary (Yekuana), Clementino Chiraspo, treasurer (Karina), Jorge Marchena, first vowel (Piapoco) and Elvia Rodriguez, second vowel, the Jivi ethnicity. On may 13, 2011, 5 general captains of sectors 2, 3, 5, 6, 7; and 34 community captains, representing 6,500 Indigenous, of the total of 12,300 who live in the state, pledged their support to the Federation. As is clear from the website of Minpi, this second FIEB has the recognition thereof. This board was chosen on May 3, 2011, according to press reports “where more than 500 Indians from Cedeño, Sucre, Sifontes, Heres and Gran Sabana municipalities elected their new officers.” This occurs because of the heavier belligerence of this Federation in defense and denunciation of abuses to indigenous communities.

This FIEB II, meanwhile, argues that:

The Federation accuses the other of being “opposition” and “illegitimate.” The statements show the degree of co-optation, intervention and lack of autonomy from the state which shows the organization as reflected in a note from a regional media:

The previous policy had kidnapped this federation FIEB in a dome completely detached from communities across the state of Bolivar, always making decisions behind closed doors, behind the Indigenous bases, and benefiting only their personal interests, leaving native peoples in a state of helplessness with its representative in the style of the era of pseudo democracy that prevailed in the last century in Venezuela. That outgoing board was given the task of holding elections four times in the past week and then suspend all meetings, the strategy of tiring the Indigenous who came to such calls out of their remote communities to attend Ciudad Bolivar where is the seat of the FIEB, indigenous councilor, Choli Lott said that in every new meeting fewer people attend, since it cost so much to move long distances. The strategy of the anti-democratic board was expected to few people attend the final call, to make decisions with few people, in the best representative style of the past (Leal, 2011).

They say they represent the Federation but it turns out that when Captain delivers his speech, said

The Indigenous journalist Natalie Vasquez from the newspaper Correo del Caroni, said about this division of FIEB:

14

There is a division and it is related to politics. There is a line that follows the state governor Francisco Rangel Gomez, and there is another line that is pro-Chavez too, but does not follow the government line. Elections were held and both were proclaimed winners. The other sector is also chavista but very unstable, they suddenly appear supporting the government, but when something happens they say nothing, it’s very strange. The governor is the Jose Gregorio Cascante. The last election was in 2011, and that situation started in that year. The government has played the division between indigenous.

(N. Vasquez, personal interview, December 18, 2013) As the testimonies say, this process of weakening FIEB is not recent, it has been increasing over the years: Yes, there was plenty of weaknesses, had individual negotiations, they assumed the fight we were carrying and they passed as if they were our representatives, somehow they negotiated what the basis was struggling and succeeding. An example of this situation is deforestation and logging in the Imataca Forest Reserve, tons of wood were cut and the wood was left in the hands of the FIEB and so far we do not know what happened with that, where those resources are. Those things always happened within the organization, for reasons such as these, the Indians stopped believing in these organizations and seeking to transform the situation.

That is now the division we have in the FIEB. (A. Romero, personal interview, December 17, 2013).

Besides the two FIEB, a third organization has an impact on the area. Is Yekuana organization called “Kuyujani.” Pemon Alexis Romero, tells about Kuyujani: The FIEB is more related to the Pemon peoples, than with the other tribes of Bolívar. So, the Yekuana organize and create its own organization: Kuyujani. They participated in meetings with FIEB, though people said they were members of the FIEB, they organized themselves apart. Since 2001 Kuyujani works in two ways: The Yekuana ethnocultural identity and recording the oral history of the community, in order to lay the historical and cultural bases of territorial claims.

(Nelly Arvelo-Jimenez, 2004).

In Zulia, Laboratorio de Paz met with activists from Maracaibo, Mara and Machiques, being the region of the country where traditional indigenous organizations have been displaced by recent organizational figures created by the National Executive, as the community council.

In addition, leaders of organizations are simultaneously working in high positions in government, generating conflicts of interest. In this regard, professor José Quintero Weir said: At this point all the indigenous communities of Zulia are subject to Community Councils, with the exception of Bari, who have their own association that is Asobariven, but has also been permeated by the government.

The

largest

historic

coalition

is

the

Regional

Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Zulia (ORPIZ), but the few public statements supported by the organization have been oriented to the defense of indigenous policies of the national government, or criticism to question the extractive State initiatives. In 2006 a call to an Orpiz Congress was suspended due to complaints from the attendees, ORPIZ is kidnapped by a minority who work for themselves and according to its interests said Edinson Molero, Añú fisherman and leader, and member of the board of the organization (Aporrea, 2006). At the time of this writing there is no evidence of any attempts to do the congress, so the procedure performed in the renewal of its authorities is unknown. Lisandro Marquez turn deputy of the Legislative Council of Zulia (CLEZ) by the PSUV and currently exercises the coordination of the organization.

A Pro-Indigenous activist of Machiques said on the functioning of ORPIZ: As far as I understand, the Yukpa and Bari, no longer participate in these assemblies. Some individual personalities remain, but we have no information about if the Regional Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Zulia is working or not. (Anonymous Machiques, personal interview, January 31, 2014) For his part, professor of the University of Zulia (LUZ) José Quintero Weir holds: Orpiz was always linked to who was in power.

Centralized organizations will always be controlled, as they are the interlocutors with the State, some kind of intermediary. These central organizations became the intermediary between organizations and the state.

(J. Quintero, op. Cit) Meanwhile Juan Carlos La Rosa, indigenous activist, said: Orpiz has not disappeared in political terms. Suddenly a statement appears with these acronyms, but they do not perform assemblies, and they do not have a policy of any kind, either in communications (J. Davis, personal interview, January 23, 2014).

The organizations interviewed in the fieldwork were Indigenous Student Association of LUZ (ACEINLUZ by it acronym in Spanish), founded in the early 90s, which channeled the claims of 5,000 Indigenous students of different native peoples within the Universidad del Zulia (LUZ). ACEINLUZ perform language courses of Wayuunaiki in faculties like Agronomy, Medicine, Humanities and Education, both to undergraduate students, and professionals interested in participate.

They also promote various student events such as the first Meeting of Young Indigenous Students of Venezuela, held on May 31, 2013 in Maracaibo, which generated several resolutions to student demands and also to demands of indigenous peoples. They currently report

15

harassment to the Wayuu peoples and the militarization of their territories. ACEINLUZ works in a study unit on Indigenous Literature and culture in the Art school of the Humanities and Education faculty whose coordinator is Prof. José Quintero Weir. The Intercultural Wainjirawa Organization, is an initiative with Bari, Wayuu and Añú peoples, promoting an autonomous educational organization of indigenous peoples, in the context of confrontation about territories in the western basin of Maracaibo Lake with transnational enterprises, with the government and mining projects, as described by Juan Carlos La Rosa (J. La Rosa, ibid).

Another was the Wayuu Maikilaraalasalii organization that works in Socuy, Mara Municipality. Jorge Montiel, its currently general coordinator, described the organization that was founded in 2002, working on the rights of indigenous peoples, denouncing the consequences of coal projects in the area and the intend to build a build a carboelectric plant in indigenous territories. The Homoetnatura Society, founded in 1996 by university professor Lusbi Portillo, whose mandate is to protect indigenous territories within the framework of human rights, Indigenous territories are the basis of all other rights Portillo said. A second term is the defense of the different

(10) Jose Quintero Weir, university professor

ecosystems in Sierra de Perija. Since the early 90’s, Homoetnatura has promoted demarcation of indigenous territories of Yukpa and Bari peoples and also the rejection to the development of mining projects. They were linked with the struggle of the community yukpa in El Tokuko and with Cacique Sabino Romero. (L. Portillo, personal interview, January 30, 2014) One initiative could not be contacted: the Bari Civil Association of Venezuela (Asobariven), whose president Eladio Akadaya simultaneously is the vice-minister of the Andean Sierra at Minpi. About this organization, an activist from Machiques said: Asobariven was a very strong organization, but has fallen sharply. They were grouped in this organization and drove the demarcation process for the Bari territories. But among them there have been many differences and divisions within communities and practically remained a paper figure, with one or two interesting and representative leaders, some of them are even government officials. So, the line of discussion and dialogue, is not due to the interests of the people but to the lines imposed on them by the government.

(11) Jorge Montiel, spokesman wayúu organization Maikiraalasalii

16

(12) Esteban Emilio Mosonyi, rector of Indigenous University Tauca

CONCEPTUAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF THE RIGHT OF THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA The right of Association was recognized in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of human rights, adopted by the United Nations (UN) on December 10, 1948 as follows: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. It was subsequently picked up in the International Covenant on Civil and political rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, ratified by Venezuela on May 10, 1978, in article 22: everyone has the right to associate freely with others, including the right to form unions and to join them for the protection of their interests. Also contained in the American Convention on human rights, adopted on 22 November 1969, signed by Venezuela that year, ratified in 1977 and finally denounced by deceased President Hugo Chavez on September of 2012 in its article 16: all persons have the right to associate with freely ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural and sports purposes or any other. In Venezuela the right of Association is protected by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic (1999) in several articles: everyone has the right to associate for lawful purposes, in accordance with the law. The State is obliged to facilitate the exercise of this right (article 52); All citizens have the right to associate for political purposes, by democratic methods of organization, operation and management (article 67) and the workers, without distinction whatsoever and without prior authorization, have the right to freely establish trade union organizations choosing to better defend their rights and interests, as well as the join or not them (article 95).

The Constitution also enshrines the right to participate individually and collectively in civil, political and community life of the country, defending human rights: everyone has the duty to fulfill their social responsibilities and jointly participate in the political, civil and community life of the country, promoting and defending human rights as the foundation of democratic coexistence and social peace. In addition, the Constitution establishes the right of meeting - public or private - without prior permission, for lawful purposes and without weapons (article 53), the right to freedom of expression through any means (article 57), the right to peaceful demonstration, no other requirements that establish the law (article 68). The Constitution has 34 articles about the right to direct participation of the people themselves (Reyna and D´elia, 2013).

The right of free association is also inherent in the

existence of a free, independent and vigorous, civil society in which citizens are involved -either individual or collectively- in activities aimed to improve, strengthen and expand human rights, democracy and social justice.

In addition, it is part of the right to self-determination of peoples, which would not be possible if the people in their countries, communities and cultures, do not enjoy freedom and autonomy to build together a life in common.

This right covers all persons without exception.

However, there are sectors of the population who have their own features, or are minorities with increased risk of violation of their rights, and is for this reason that a regulatory framework, conditions and specific support that meets these characteristics are needed. Indigenous peoples are one of these sectors. This means that they have the right to associate according to their values, usages, customs, ancestral traditions, beliefs and religions.

Therefore, Indigenous peoples have the right to assemble and to use their sacred and ceremonial areas, and the right to full contact and common activities with their members living in the territory of neighboring States.

According to the law of peoples and indigenous communities (LOPCI), adopted on December 27, 2005, indigenous organizations are those socio-political structure, that each town and indigenous community creates for itself, according to their needs and expectations, and according to their traditions and customs.

In accordance with the right to Association, indigenous peoples have an international and national legal framework that recognizes them. Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal, approved by the international organization of the work (ILO) in 1989, ratified by Venezuela on May 22, 2002 states in its article 2: the Governments action shall include measures: (b) to promote the full realization of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identityâ&#x20AC;? their customs and traditions, and their institutions. Article 4 of the Convention itself says: Must adopt special measures that are required to safeguard persons, institutions, property, labor, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned.

A second international normative frame of reference is the Declaration of the United Nations on the rights

17

of indigenous peoples (2007), ratified by Venezuela on September 13, 2007, with several articles on the topic: indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their own political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions (article 5); Indigenous peoples have the right to [...] maintain and develop their own decision-making institutions (art. 18); Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their systems or political, economic, and social institutions (art. 20); Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their structures and to choose the composition of them, in accordance with their own procedures (article 33); Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their own customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, where they exist, customs or legal systems, in accordance with international standards of human rights (article 34).

In the regulatory framework of Venezuelan law, the Constitution has a whole chapter, (number VIII,) devoted to the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. Several of these items regulate the right of indigenous association: The State shall recognize the existence of indigenous communities and peoples, their social, political and economic organization, their cultures, usages and customs, languages and religions [...]

(Article 119); Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their ethnic and cultural identity, worldview, values, spirituality, and their places of sacred and cult [...] (Article 121); Indigenous peoples have the right to political participation.

The State shall guarantee indigenous representation in the National Assembly and the legislative bodies of the Federal and local authorities with the indigenous population, in accordance with the law (article 125).

The LOPCI details the warranties on the right expressed in the Constitution: The peoples and indigenous communities have the right to decide and take autonomously control of their own institutions and ways of life, their economic practices, their identity, culture, law, uses and customs, education, health, worldview, protection of their traditional knowledge, use, protection and defense of their habitat and lands and “in general, of the day-today management of their community life within their

lands to maintain and strengthen their cultural identity.

Peoples and indigenous communities have the right to participate in the management, conservation and utilization of the environment and the natural resources existing in their habitat and lands (article 5); […] Peoples and indigenous communities will participate directly or through their organizations of representation, in the formulation of public policies aimed at indigenous peoples and communities or any other public policies that may affect them directly or indirectly. In any case, should be taken into account the own organization and legitimate authorities (article 6); […] Its representation will be determined by the indigenous peoples and communities, according to their traditions and customs, according to their own organization, without more limitations than those laid down in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the law (article 7); The organs, agencies and other bodies of the State, private institutions or individuals, will not practice actions that can undermine or weaken the nature, range and the function of the legitimate authorities of indigenous communities and peoples (article 18); Peoples and indigenous communities have right to participation and to the political limelight. “For the exercise of this right is guaranteed indigenous representation in elected offices as the National Assembly, Legislative Councils, municipal councils and parish boards in States with indigenous populations, or any other instance both at the national, state and parish level, in accordance with the respective laws (article 63); The peoples and indigenous communities have the right to preserve, develop and update their own social and political organization, regardless off the level: communal, municipal, state, national, or regional, based on traditions and customs (article 69); Indigenous peoples have the right to associate freely in organizations of any kind for the representation and defense of their rights and interests, to promote the full exercise of these rights and the fair, equitable and effective relations between the peoples and indigenous communities and other sectors of society. Corresponds to the indigenous peoples and communities to determine the representativeness of these organizations (Article 70).

18

THE RIGHT TO THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA

Always with great respect, we consider as a logical reflection, a reflection also of feeling and dignity, that the member of an indigenous tribe who do not have the clarity of being with the Bolivarian Revolution is almost a traitor to his people, a traitor to their community Vice President Jorge Arreaza at a state ceremony in south highway axis via Samariapo, Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas, 2013.

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PARTNERING Good practices concerning the guarantee by the State, in the promotion and enjoyment of the right to Association, implies that all people willingly and freely can choose where they want to participate, who wants to participate, the reasons why they want to participate and how they want to be associated.

Any association must have total liberty to choose autonomously to their members or aspirants. The State must ensure that all participation is voluntary. No one can or should be compelled to participate in a partnership.

An association must be able to choose freely which objectives and purposes have as long as they are lawful as well as the ways that can be used to comply with their goals and, State cannot regulate, define, establish, or alter, the purpose of an organization. Among the widely permitted purposes should be those associations that have as a goal the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The State cannot even under the pretext of accountability, coordination, cooperation and stewardship functions or governance activities, impose purposes to associations.

Different people interviewed conducted assessments on the State of the right to Association of indigenous organizations, agreeing about the progressivity of the regulatory framework adopted in the country since 1999, highly protective of indigenous rights, including freedom of Association. A second consensus, of a negative nature, has been levels of government intervention in the organizations, from the promotion of figures outside their culture, identity and worldview.

It is important to highlight that in the specific case of the indigenous associations, the State beside good practices related to the right to Association in general, must incorporate conservation, promotion, respect, development and secure foundations and principles which are vital and settled out in the national and international legal framework: Organizations and institutions themselves: own organizational bodies which are representative of the group, whether communal, municipal, state, regional or national type, based on their customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, (where there are), legal systems or customs operation should take place in accordance with international human rights standards.

Ethnic, cultural identity and diversity: their traditional cultures, customs, spirituality, worldview and values. Safeguarding traditional cultures as part of the heritage of humanity.

Autonomy and self-determination freedom to decide and take control of its institutions in defense and development of their ways of life, economic practices, identity, culture, rights, uses and customs, education, health, worldview, protection of traditional knowledge, self-determination, use, protection and defense of their habitat Non-discrimination right to be free from any discrimination towards its origin, identity, ethnicity, customs, traditions and culture.

Information and consultation any activity that can directly or indirectly affect the indigenous peoples and communities must be informed and consulted with them. It should take into account language and spirituality, respecting the own organization, the legitimate authorities and systems of communication and information of the members of indigenous communities and peoples involved.

Participation Right to participation and the leadership in public policy as well as effective participation in all

19

levels of decision-making in political, legislative and administrative processes that may affect them directly or indirectly which exercise control over their own economic, social and cultural development.

Restricting the right of association: Obligation to register

The answer to the question: The right of indigenous association have been respected, guaranteed and promoted? Could be summarized in the words of the teacher and defender of indigenous rights Vladimir Aguilar: It is a right that is respected in the terms contained in the national and international articles. With regard to the right of Association of indigenous organizations should make a clarification, because we must take into account other rights that are also competing. And in this context we believe that there are limitations and ignorance by the State by all processes of cooption to indigenous organizations that have practically put them at the service of big projects and guidelines that the national Government has been implementing (V. Aguilar, interview staff, 4 December 2013) This dual assessment was shared by anthropologist Esteban Emilio Mosonyi: there is no greater obstacle to the free meeting of indigenous peoples and their right to associate. “But there has not been greater support and also in certain territories: Amazonas, Perijá, Bolivar and Anzoátegui, there have been quite a few complaints regarding the interference on that freedom.

(E Mosonyi, personal interview, January 27, 2014) DIAGNOSIS ON THE RIGHT OF THE INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATION IN VENEZUELA ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION. 1.- The right of admission.

The right of association implies that it is not necessary that people form a legal entity to be able to enjoy and exercise the freedom of that right. As was noted, Venezuelan law establishes a registration fee waivers in accordance with respect for the worldview and traditional organizational forms.

First question: Was there any restrictions on the exercise of rights by not having a legally registered document?

52% reported having had some obstacles and 48% said it has not been an obstacle for their actions.

Professor Vladimir Aguilar, who has accompanied various processes of legal registration of indigenous organizations, established fundamental problems about registration process: There has been no restrictions to legal registration,

what there has been is misunderstanding. It has to do with the time of institutions and the right time. There have been no restrictions, but there is a nuance. The Lopci says that indigenous traditional organizations have legal personality. How is that expressed from the point of view of the rule? That is the law, but how do we define it at the institutional level? The Indigenous say “doctor, we already have legal personality, what do we have to do?” To me, just what the Lopci says: you already have legal personality. How we materialize it from the standpoint of positive law? Although we say that the other system is acknowledged, how do we explain in the registration, or in the notary the fact of these organization having legal personality? When we go to the notary, we say “This is the Council of elders, which is the highest authority”. What the notary says?

“Ok, but what do you want me to do?” We answer: “well, the Lopci says they have legal personality”, “and what can I do?” “Well, issuing a document or something that says that they have legal personality,” “not, but to do that they have to bring the document to me”, “But what do we have to bring to you?” “Well, you have to bring the certificate”, at the end, they have to go and act as the positive law claims. It is not restricted because is provided by the LOPCI, but you have to go back to the scheme that you have to create the Association and the Board. What have we done? We have tried to create the policies, we have tried to harmonize with the forms of decision-making that they already have, and that is what has led to the paper. And with all that, there are notaries who do not understand, they ask, “What is Kashana, what is that?” In the right of association there are no restrictions, but when you are going to materialize, there are institutional barriers. For it, Aguilar describes the ways in which they could legalize some organizations: “Most of the attempts we’ve done, because many statutes pertaining to organizations, were preconstitutional, what we have done is to bring organizations to constitutional law, incorporating much of the catalogs of rights which are now contained in the Constitution, harmonizing with the whole legal framework of the country and going a little further,

20

trying to reclaim the traditional structures. We have participated in a very interesting process of building their associations to give them the legal status requiring the LOPCI but at the institutional level you have to take a tour, let’s say, positivist “. The problem is that public officials are not appropriate to the times of the law, they are not trained “(V. Aguilar, personal interview, December 4, 2013).

One of the international standards set the system to recognize the legal status of an entity, regardless of it being a “statement” or a system of “registration/incorporation,” but must ensure that the process is truly accessible, with clear, speedy, apolitical and inexpensive procedures. The law provides exemptions for indigenous associations to register but the process is often cumbersome and expensive for those who must travel from their communities to government sites. Trips to major urban centers, the cost of food, transport and accommodation in order to register an indigenous association may restrict the exercise of the right. Alexis Romero, indigenous Pemon of the Gran Sabana, commented: The registration depends on the resources you may have. Most of all because we’re here -Santa Elena de Uairén- and moving, trying to do the registration, costs money. The problem here is not so much for the request of the legal bodies, but also by the same Indigenous leadership. The same FIB discredits any organization that you create. You have to legalize it to be relevant for them (A. Romero, personal interview, December 17, 2013) Second question: Have you suffered amendment or state interference in the aims of the association?

Of the total respondents, 82% said they had suffered some form of interference in the aims of the association by the Venezuelan state, only 18% said they did not have any state interference.

Modification or interference with the purposes of the association

Jorge Montiel, Wayuu indigenous leader, described the interference with the purposes of the association when registering indigenous organizations: Note that if you are going to register an indigenous organization you read the content of the paper, and if there are any ‘strong’ clauses, they say: no, cthis is not possible.” Then it must be re-done in a more peaceful way... We cannot organize frankly, we have to speak in a soft way, slowly or “bajaito” but we must fight, we must insist in the strog parts too. Indigenous organizations have our own statute, but when we put some content in the documents it is rejected, then when is reviewed it could be rejected again. The registrator said, “I’m not going to certificate this, this is too strong, I’m not going to mess with this.” Here we talk about defending our nature, having connections, international support, the answer is “No”. We went there twice in order to certificate our documents, the first time, we talked to the lawyer and he said: “remove this and put this another content that is softer,” and then, he did the certification.

(J. Montiel, personal interview, February 1, 2014)

2.- The right to operate without State intrusion unfounded As shown by the words of Vice President Jorge Arreaza, the national Government insists on the obligation of loyalty in exchange for recognition as a valid subject and not been branded a “traitor” to the current political process: But others are disguised as Indians, they are indigenous trying to manipulate and deceive, there is even supposedly indigenous governors with Indian blood who betrayed the revolution and betrayed the indigenous peoples. I ask you political clarity to all my indigenous political colleagues throughout Venezuela. Clear Vision.

Here’s the constitution, here is the Commander Chavez, and here is the revolution of the Indians. No two ways, there is only one: political clarity (Arreaza, 2013).

Activists linked to indigenous rights confirmed the previous statements: No one would deny that a lawful association can be done as the law says, but in practice there are many obstacles. There is a formula of the government, establishing who are lawful, who are those who are known, who are not going to have problems. Who are they? Those who are chosen, because they are supporting the “revolutionary process”, as stated by the university professor, Lusbi Portillo, coordinator of the NGO Sociedad Homo et natura based in Zulia. (L. Portillo, personal interview, January 30, 2014)

21

Political and ideological pressures that were perceived as undue

Third question: Have you received ideological or political pressures that members of indigenous organizations have perceived as unfair?

83% of respondents considered that they had received different types of pressures Guillermo Guevara, indigenous Jivi of the Amazon, a former member of the Constituent Assembly, tells us: Suddenly we are told that we are Socialists or Communists. But how can we understand this? As indigenous, I have never knew that, and we don’t either catalog us in those ways. Ask me which model or system we represent, and I’m not going to say that I am a Socialist, materialist or capitalist, none of that. I am only indigenous (G. Guevara, personal interview, November 16, 2013) Mosonyi described the situation of rights in Exchange for loyalty to a political project: A thesis that is not written but that there is in the environment says Government recognize you as indigenous, but now as a reward of that recognition, you demand absolute loyalty, a transformation to integrate them to the revolutionary scheme that they are promoting, not at the indigenous level but across the State. ‘I recognized you, but I did it because of that: so you are one of us, not to form your independent project´.

(E Mosonyi, personal interview, January 27, 2014)

“revolutionary”, all revolutions have been so far, hastily.

That forces them to be considered few of diversity, but the mouth talking about respect for others, is not really into diversity. As -immediately- want to see results, they want to turn Venezuela into the “happiest country in the world” in two or three years, that oversimplifies their methods and establishes a uniform criterion that is absolutely incompatible with a true rebirth of indigenous diversity, Afro-descendant diversity, including the diverse peasant. (E. Mosonyi, personal interview, January 27, 2014) The right to operate without State interference, unfounded, states that once an organization is established, have the right to operate autonomously, free and under their precepts with lawful purposes.

For Juan Carlos la Rosa, Government interference is made both to traditional indigenous organizations and to the own internal forms of community cultural relations: interfered on two levels. The level of destruction or intervene based on intermediation and also to get into social relations level. No Government before had gotten into the indigenous own relations. (J. La Rosa, personal interview, January 23, 2014) The different testimonies gathered expressed the pressure suffered by the communities and indigenous organizations abandon their traditional structures and form other organizational figures to be able to be recognized as partners by the Government. Esteban Emilio Mosonyi anthropologist described it as part of the process of “repartidizacion” of the indigenous movement: “there is a political move, to put the Indigenous thing into a political party logic. What is “repartidizar”? Is to give more importance to the political party and the system of government than the importance to the recognition of the indigenous or the fact of being recognized as indigenous”. (E Mosonyi, personal interview, January 27, 2014)

Obstruction of work

Alejandro Lanz, director of the Center for ecological research of Venezuela, based in Ciudad Bolivar, adds: Perhaps at other times it was disguised a little longer, but now is not: you are friend or enemy, you are these or you are not.” Many times it’s about conveniences and all the human rights treaties have being violated (A. Lanz, personal interview, December 19, 2013). Meanwhile Mosonyi adds the idea of this conflict as a result of the collision of two different rationales: Indigenous and

22

Fourth question: do you think that public officials have obstructed the work of the indigenous organization?

70% of the interviewed says that the State obstructed the achieve of the goals that they pursuit when they formed their organization. The State, who should be the entity that favors relations, and promotes the scope of indigenous rights, is perceived negatively by a majority sector of the interviewed. The indigenous teacher José Quintero also explained the complaint about the interventionist role of the Minpi in indigenous organizations: The MINPI and especially Nicia Maldonado was often, an enemy of the struggle for the demarcation. Here the demarcation is completely paralyzed, no community has received no title. For them any social struggle is anarchy, in fact that is what those who claim autonomous organization are most accused of. (J.Quintero, op cit) Guillermo Arana leading Piaroa of the Amazon holds this same view: The problem is related to the MINPI that responds to Government guidelines. It not really represents lines of indigenous peoples. ¿Why the demarcation process has not been done? Because the person who goes there has a vision, a commitment to the basis. They are entities that are there (G. Arana, personal interview, November 17, 2013)

the FIEB: (former) Minister Nicia Maldonado when she was fighting with all organizations including ORPIA, CONIVE, and trying to eliminate all that to enforce indigenous communities to created a great commune or community councils, she even did say that it was the only way to get to indigenous territories, things we do not agreed. The MINPI became have not a clear and consistent policy in regard to indigenous peoples health or anything, the only thing they know is repeating the same speech: “Patria, Socialismo y solidaridad con el anti-imperialismo” (homeland, socialism and solidarity with anti-imperialism), that is the only speech that the MINPI has (A. Romero, op. CIT).

Fifth question: would have had obligation to carry out proselytizing activities to be included as beneficiaries of public policies or be taken into account by the State?

100% of respondents answered affirmatively.

Obligation to engage in political or electoral propaganda to become beneficiaries of public policy or be taken into account by the State

For Alexis Romero, the management of the MINPI, has been characterized by boosting figures outside the traditional indigenous organizations as their partners: The work of the MINPI has been to promote communal councils, completely ignoring indigenous organizations. That’s the fight that they’ve had with

WHAT ABOUT COMMUNAL COUNCILS AND WHAT IS THE DANGER THAT REPRESENTS FOR THE PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES AND INDIGENOUS ASSOCIATIONS? Someone who does not support this revolution does not fit into the indigenous peoples.

Aloha Nuñez Minister of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples in the State act October 12, 2013 Columbus Day in the Indigenous Mercosur Summit.

(Nuñez, 2013)

to the testimonies collected, was the greatest violation to the principle of the right to Association based on unfounded State interference to the free operation.

The organizational model promoted by the State based on “indigenous” communal councils, according

Organs and bodies of the State in its relations with the municipal councils will give preference to the

Communal councils (CC), by law enjoy preference to the State above any other social organization:

23

attention of the requirements that they formulate and the satisfaction of their needs, ensuring the exercise of their rights when they relate to these. This preference includes: 1. Special attention to communal councils in the formulation, implementation and control of all public policies. 2. Privileged and preferential allocation in the budget of the public resources for the care of the requirements formulated by the CC. 3. Preference of communal councils on the transfer of public servicesâ&#x20AC;?. (Organic law of communal councils, 2009) COMMUNITY COUNCILS (CC) AND THE INDIGENOUS FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: What is the CC? According to the law, the CC are instances of articulation, integration and participation among the citizens and the various community organizations, social and popular movements. Organic law of communal councils (LOCC) article 2.

What is the purpose of the CC? To exercise a Community Government and direct management of public policies and projects orientated to respond to the needs, potential and aspirations of communities. Article 2. LOCC What are the values and principles to organize, run and operate as CC? According to normative participation, joint responsibility, democracy, national identity, free discussion of ideas, speed, coordination, cooperation, strong - safety, transparency, accountability, honesty, common good, humanism, territoriality, collectivism, effectiveness, efficiency, ethics, social responsibility, social control, freedom, equality, justice, volunteer work, social and gender equality. Article 3. LOCC What is the purpose of the CC? According to the law, the construction of the new model of socialist society of equality, equity and social justice. Article 2.LOCC. And to establish the sociopolitical base of the socialism that consolidate a new political, social, cultural and economic model. Article 3 LOCC However the CC are forms of social organization, relationships, structures and institutions, different to the traditional of indigenous peoples and communities.

They have turn its object, purpose and reason of

existence, and have a very different worldview, culture and modes of internal relationship. The CC are new societal conformations, with a geographical area and a different population group, that have a similar structure to a microgobierno (government in a small scale) with a purpose, goals, motivation and plan framed in an ideological and political project called socialism and the construction of a new national communal State structure.

There is a worrying aspect about matters that are vital to the peoples and indigenous communities as their population base, its territory and self-demarcation, uses, customs, judicial system, etc. The CC establishes a geographical area of action that differs much from the spatial worldview of indigenous peoples. Also happens with the basis of representation, a CC of indigenous peoples can be set from 10 families that in many cases breaks with its structure of population identity and interferes in its conformation, in addition to the traditional use of spaces that are common to them. Article 4.3. LOCC. The structure of geographic identity and its members is transformed into new geographical space that defines this new organization and families representing it chosen through other structures than their assemblies and traditional authorities.

The CC Act provides further guidelines, practices and actions that individuals must carry out to form these new forms of organization. Again interfere in the traditional and cultural forms for the decision-making and defines that any member of the community can create a team, and in a span of 60 days since its creation should define the scope, object and purpose of the communal Council. It shall draw up a sketch of the geographic community scope. Conducting of the demographic and socio-economic census, the community organizes and convenes an Assembly of citizens. Article 6 LOCC The Citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Assembly differs from traditional organ discussion of indigenous community, as it is defined based on predefined geographical area by developing committee or the 10 families who decide to form the CC. The attendance of only 10% of the total population of the area defined with the sole condition of being over 15 years validates the working committees that will be the structure of the CC and another structure called provisional electoral team.

Article 7 LOCC Over a period of 90 days, the provisional electoral team of 3 people with the developer team receives

24

individual or collective applications (Article 11 LOCC) of people who want to be reresentatives for the areas that will make up the structure of the CC. Then, they promote and convene the Community constituent assembly (Article 9 LOCC), as its name suggests is the foundational and therefore what constitutes this new micro-community, its participants and its organ of social representation called CC. This meeting should have a state organ -specific to that function-invited by these two bodies that accompany and validate the process.

Community constituent assembly elects its first representatives of the CC, with the attendance of 30% of the total, making it valid or otherwise with the 20% for a second call of the population (that is part of the census conducted by the sponsoring committee). Article 10. These will have a period of 2 years in the with the possibility of reelection. Article 12 The structure of CC also comes default with executive, administrative, financial and community social control units. For each community representatives are chosen.

Although all the law contradicts the territory, traditional institutions, traditional forms of association, assembly practices, decision-making and freedom of purpose to create partnership and structure, the Act provides the following clarification In the indigenous peoples and communities, the nomination and election of representatives will be made as provided in this Act, taking into account usage, customs and traditions. Article 11 LOCC The CC are not autonomous, they have a mentoring and monitoring, as we saw in conformation as well as in their actions and relationship with the state: LOCC Article 56 provides that the Ministry of Popular Power with competence in citizen participation dictate policies, strategies, plans, programs and projects that will be part of the citizen participation in public affairs and also accompany the communal councils in meeting its aims and purposes, and facilitate the joint relations between them and the agencies and entities of public power.

In addition the Ministryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main attribution address all the areas corresponding to the CC. The Minpi is subordinate to assist in shaping the work of CC that requires: The ministry of indigenous peoples remains as support for the work of the communes Ministry Article 57 LOCC Ignoring their own leadership characteristics, domestic authorities including councils of elders and

their own institutions, the requirements to be met by a person to aspire to be representatives are also predefined. Article 15 LOCC. Requirements: being Venezuelan or a foreign in the community with at least one year of residence, except in the case of newly established communities; older than 15 years; Be registered in the electoral register of the community; Moral standing and integrity; Capable of collective work and time available for community work; Unitary spirit and commitment to the interests of the community; Not occupy elected positions; Not be subject to political disablement or civil interdiction; Not be required by courts; presentation letter of application or written expression of intent, identifying name and identity card. The only non-mandatory requirement for indigenous communities is: not own relationship to the fourth degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity with other representatives or members of the administrative and financial unit or the Social Monitoring Unit that make up the community council Article 15.8 LOCC. The assembly of citizens: The new deliberative and decision-making structure is the highest level of discussion and decision of community power, participation and popular prominence. A simple majority of those attending such meetings is sufficient to ensure that decisions are binding. Article 2 LOCC What decisions does the assembly of citizens?

Some specifically related to the operation of CC: Choose or revokes the representative established pursuant to the Act; Choose and dismisses the members of the electoral commission; Evaluate the management of each of the units of the CC; Approves the request for transfer services; And appoints the members of the commission contract, pursuant to the law regulating matters; Approves the charter and bylaws of the CC. However, there are very serious concerns that directly interfere with the formation, structure and functioning of traditional communities and villages.

Beyond the scope of the functions of a fuzzy figure to establish itself as a governing structure that controls and defines the new societal life.

- Must approve the geographic scope that defines it and covers the CC, interfering and breaking with the indigenous territorial and spatial worldview.

25

- Is approving any form of community organization on a permanent or temporary basis in the defined geographical area and population.

- Approves the rules of behavior of the community.

- Approves the integrated community development plan and any other plan according to essential aspects of community life, in order to contribute to the overall transformation of the community.

- Approves any socio-community project, alternative communication, education, health, culture, recreation, physical activity and sport, housing and habitat, infrastructure, operation, among others.

- It denotes the CC representatives for different levels of popular participation and public policy management - Approves the socio-productive to be proposed to various organs and agencies of the government or by private institutions.

The Community Liaison: This new societal organizational structure has in turn another instance called Community coordination (Article 19 LOCC): A place where everything comes together related to the work of spokesman of the different units of the CC. Whose functions are: monitoring of the decisions adopted in the Assembly of Citizens; management of the financial unit of the CC; Submit proposals approved by the Citizens’ Assembly for the formulation of public policy; Ensuring continuous and timely information on the activities of the units of communal council to the Citizens Assembly; Promoting education and training community representatives of the CC and the community in general; Prepare draft report on the application for transfer services and present it to the Assembly of Citizens; Develop bylaws CC; Convene for matters of common interest to the other units of the CC; Set the working system and the rules which must include at least fortnightly for meetings, leaving written record of the agreements reached.

And some clear guidelines defined directionality, with no independence or autonomy of the rules and guidelines of state political-economic: - Coordinates the development, implementation and evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Development Plan, linked to municipal plans and

estate development in accordance with the general lines of the Simon Bolívar National Project.

- Coordinates the implementation of communal cycle for the development of comprehensive community development plan.

- Coordinates with the Bolivarian Militia regard to the overall defense of the Nation.

- Coordinates strategic actions to promote the socioproductive model, community and socio-community networks linked to integral development plan. The Executive Unit “is the instance of the community council responsible for promoting and coordinating the organized participation of community residents, community organizations, social movements and popular in the different working committees” Article 27 LOCC. The executive unit is composed of the elected assembly of citizens spokespersons where equal number of representatives according to the number of working committees or other community organizations that exist or is chosen to conform the community, such as Article 28 LOCC: There may be: Health Committee; Committee of urban land; Committee on housing and habitat; Committee of communal economy; Committee of comprehensive security and defense; Community Committee of alternative means; Committee of recreation and sports; Committee on Food and Consumer Protection; Technical Committee on water; Technical Committee on energy and gas; Committee on social protection of children and adolescents; Community Committee for Persons with Disabilities; Committee on education, culture and citizenship education; Committee on Family and Gender Equality; any other committees deemed necessary for each community specifically, in addition to those mentioned, indigenous peoples may form committees of environment and demarcation of indigenous land habitat; Committee of traditional indigenous medicine; Committee of own education, intercultural bilingual education and indigenous languages. The law is very clear in relation to other forms of social organization: In cases where any other organizational forms established in the community, other than those listed in this Act, it shall incorporate the establishment, functioning and powers of working committees of the Executive Unit, in accordance with relevant regulations. The functions of the committees work take place in the statutes of the community council and the Regulation of this Law. Article 28 LOCC

26

The functions of this structure are very broad, including Control, advocacy, monitoring, and execution of plans, projects, proposals emanating from the assembly of citizens and which will be conducted through committees of social involvement and other organizational forms. Implementing the decisions of the Assembly of Citizens in the area of competence; Create and organize the system of internal Community information; Organize social volunteer work in each committee; making the statutes of the CC to be approved by the Assembly of Citizens; Coordinate and articulate everything related to the organization, operation and implementation of the work plans of the committees and their relationship to the Social Audit Unit, the Administrative and Financial Unit Community and other social organizations in the community; Promote the creation of new organizations with the approval of the Assembly of Citizens in the collective interest and the integral development of the community; Promote the participation of the working committees or other forms of community organization in the development and implementation of public policies, by submitting proposals to the agencies and entities of the Government; Promote, participate in and contribute, together with the Bolivarian Militia in comprehensive security and defense of the nation; To assist the agencies and entities of the Public Power in collecting information related to the community, according to the existing law; Encourage and promote the development of community projects that seek to meet the needs, aspirations and potential abilities of the community; Meet requests and issue certificates of residence of the inhabitants of the community, for the purposes of the inherent activities of the communal council, without prejudice to the existing legal framework. Article 29 LOCC. The Administrative and Financial Unit Community.

Article 30: is an entity for administration, implementation, investment, credit, savings and financial intermediation of resources and government funds, called micro community councils, based on the decisions taken in the assembly of citizens â&#x20AC;&#x153;privileging the social interest on the accumulation of capital. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Elected through popular election process composed of five residents of the geographical area and population that comprise the integrated LOCC Article 31. Spokesmen for the Administrative and Financial Unit have civil, criminal and administrative liability. Among the characteristics of an administrative entity of financial functions, establishes how much, why and how the resources are allocated to each of the committees and organizations that shapes societal field and emphasize the obligation to: Support policies, development and strengthening of social, popular and alternative economy; Propose

alternative exchange of goods and services forms for the satisfaction of needs and strengthen the local economy; and promote household savings.

Social Monitoring Unit Article 33 LOCC: Performs evaluation of community management and surveillance activities, resources and funds management of the CC. Composed of 5 inhabitants of defined geographic area and population, by popular election. Its functions are: Refer to the Ministry of Popular Power with competence in citizen participation, equity affidavits of the CC units representatives and financial management; Coordinate the performance of their duties, with organs of popular power.

Permanent Electoral Commission. Article 36 LOCC. Responsible for organizing and conducting the process of election or revocation of the spokesmen of the CC and consultation on issues of community life, as well as otherwise decided by the Assembly of citizens.

Composed of 5 inhabitants with respective substitutes, for a period of 2 years from his election in Assembly of citizens. They must, draw up and keep up-to-date the electoral register of the Community (new geographical area and population determined), formed by all the inhabitants of the community, over 15 years, according to the provisions of the law.

The law states that the Ministry competent in social participation, simplifies and facilitates all procedures related to the conformation of the CC. Article 58 LOCC Exemptions. The CC shall be exempt from payment of all national taxes and registration fees. May be established by laws and ordinances of the states and municipalities exemptions for community councils provided for in this article. Article 61 LOCC. A highlight feature is that the law defines the process of popular participation as: Communal Cycle What is the Communal cycle?

According to the law is a process to ensure popular participation and participatory planning that responds to community needs and contributes to the development of the potential and capabilities of the community. This particular through the implementation of five phases: diagnosis, plan, budget, execution and social control.

Article 44 LOCC.

27

Communal cycle

ComunalComunal Council Consejo Citizens’ Assembly Asamblea de ciudadanos Comisión Permanent Electoral electoral Commission permanente

Coordinación Community comunitaria Liaison Unidad Executive Unit Ejecutiva

Consejos.

Council Organizaciones Social Organizations sociales

Unidad Administrativa Administrative and y Financial Unit Community Financiera Comunitaria

Why breaks into identity, cultural tradition, worldview, social organization of indigenous peoples and communities?

The CC Act determines a new structure of micro Government about a new form of corporate organization: Sets its structures, functions, relationships, goals and decision-making. That is, any traditional deliberative structure, jurisdiction, constitution, practices and decision-making are obvious. Not the community or the people depending on its composition who discusses and determines the best for their community, but this new geographic and population boundaries established as micro society and formalizes a new operating micro-governance structure.

The CC is foundational and essential part of the new state structure promoted by the national government called communal state. The districts

Unidad SocialContraloría Monitoring Social Unit

in turn are territorial, spatial and field populations that make up the new state.

The commune is the next step or link of the new state structure. The union of several community boards or councils of workers, students, etc., form a commune where a local authority will turn new structures of self-government and communal relationship with the state. Article 1 of the Organic Law of Communes (LOC).

The Commune by the law is a socialist space in accordance with a system of social production and the pattern of endogenous and sustainable development within the Plan for Economic and Social Development of the Nation. Article 5 LOC. It is formed, organized and operates based on something undefined as is the doctrine of Liberator Simon Bolivar, and is governed by the principles and socialist values. Article 2 The Commune LOC fundamental purpose of community building state.

Article 6 LOC.

28

The Minpi reported that according to the Ministry of Popular Power for Communes and Social Protection for the year 2013 there were 2,685 registered in-

digenous CC nationwide. The Minpi states that since 2008, 840 projects has been approved, benefiting about 115,000 people (Minpi, 2013).

Consejo Common Council Comunal or o Councils Consejos

Ciudades Ciudades comunales, comunales, federaciones Federaciones comunales, Comunales, confederaciones Confederaciones comunales Comunales

Comuna Commune s

Communal State Estado comunal

29

TESTIMONIALS: THE IMPOSITION OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS AS NEW INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS TO THE STATE. In Bolívar state, Indigenous journalist Natalie Vasquez sees challenges and opportunities in the work of the CC in the region: The indigenous peoples have adapted to the organizations that the government has set, and have their captaincy and also their CC even sometimes mixed, the same members of the captaincies are winning elections to the CC, then manage the resource of the captaincy and CC. It is a way of self-management for some projects. I saw it as an opportunity to do things, at least small, for building materials, for operatives to ask for personal documents of identification and vaccination.

When asked if there is evidence of political exclusion in promoting CC in the region, she said: They have encouraged those who are progovernment and also the government has interfered with those who have already been established. So it’s a game: those in favor of the government, they deliver certain resources, some aid and go to certain activities, and those that do not, are excluded (N. Vasquez, op cit.).

The pro-Indigenous activist of Machiques referred to the imposture of organizational models as a prelude to dialogue with the authorities: When they go as partners to assume a dialogue with a representative of the Government, the first thing they heard is: “From which CC are you from?” The Government immediately cut or removes any other way of representation. Everything is handled from the CC. That has been imposed as an organizational model. If you do not belong to a CC you will have no place in the opinion of anything.

(Anonymous Machiques, op cit.)

Professor José Quintero agrees that the obligation of indigenous peoples to be organized under the figure of the CC is the main way to violate the right to indigenous organization: It is impossible to create an organization, their own organizations if those are not called Communal Councils and does not meet the guidelines of one. And not only that they were denied access to obtaining resources, financial support if they are not in a CC, they even have denied the right to dialogue. No other

member, no other organization than a Community Council is received or served in any government agency. It was different in the “Fourth Republic”: We could create any organization by our own action; it was not the state that said, “How’s your organization?” Or “must be such a thing “. What if the state was generating a policy of intervention through their organizations and leaders to permeate indigenous organizations?, it worked, but they are not telling you what are they trying to do, what they say is: “you can not attend if you are not part of a CC. (J. Quintero, op cit.)

This opinion is shared by the indigenous Pemon Alexis Romero: The State respects the organizations in accordance with its guidelines, like CC, which are being created within the state structure. They will not recognize the authority of a master, our structures are virtually unknown, but the law of the CC is also misinterpretated. This law contemplates the CC can be used as well as other organizations, but the government, through its agents, has interpreted that only the CC can participate without taking into account the other grassroots organizations. (A. Romero, op cit.)

The loss of the worldview, values, cultural identity and traditional forms and institutions.

Juan Carlos Rivero, director of the Institute of Geography of the ULA, who has advised academic processes of self-demarcation of indigenous territories, said: They have to be organized in a scheme such as the Community Councils or Municipalities, which somehow distorts the natural social organizations of indigenous communities. It is not just a problem that denatured but transforms. Here is a process of transformation of their natural economies, proletarianization and loss of their indigenous values, that liquid culture and forget the premises of the Constitution. (J. Rivero, personal interview, December 4, 2013) The journalist and researcher Minerva Vitti also warned about the dangers of the CC figure for Aboriginal communities: The CC, as they are completely different from indigenous culture has interfered in its organization, because it goes from the arrival of public money.

Many times is not known how to manage it because Indigenous do not have the tools to do it and at the

30

end a conflict of interest arises. They think “I put my family here to make it work”, but is not seen as an improvement in the community. What you see is an organization that is not typical of the Indigenous tradition (M. Vitti, personal interview, November 29, 2013) The Indian journalist Juan Noguera described: The CC is an imposition of the national society. In consequence, they have internal conflicts, dissatisfaction and sometimes hopelessness. (J. Noguera, op cit.)

Meanwhile Vladimir Aguilar believes that this figure ignores the work in the major problems of the communities: The CC at the community level, created fragmentation problems and confrontations, and ultimately has resulted in the weakening of traditional indigenous organizations. Curiously we find that no single CC in indigenous territories is claiming for economic resources for such thing like the demarcation of territories. (V. Aguilar, op cit.)

An indigenous activist of Machiques described the tension between traditional authorities and representatives of the CC: I lost count of how many CC are there for each area, because it has created division within the division, and as talk of at least 10 members, a family is about forming a CC, and as they say” every CC has power, because it handles money that has become in turn on its own authority. “Then the traditional figure of the cacique, who was the figure for mediation and coexistence, establishing internal order within each community and each village has been virtually relegated to nothing, not even to solve domestic problems, internal problems. Nobody talks about the organization itself but of the coordinators of the CC. “I want my own organization but if I do not go there, I will stay out,” that’s a very colloquial expression, the way they express the dilemma of maintaining their own forms of organization and what is being imposed (Anonymous, op cit.)

The current president of the Indigenous University agrees about the tensions caused by the introduction of the figure of the CC in the communities: The dynamics of the CC have disrupted indigenous processes. They are made with a very Western view, even the use of language, the writing, and all the parameters. The CC and the communes are vertical, dependent on the executive, conducted in a hasty

manner. Most of the concrete results of both the CC and the communes reflects that image (E. Mosonyi, op cit.).

Indigenous rights experts held a negative balance on the impact of CC, indigenous people also agree with this idea. Nelson Ceballos, Wayuu leader of the Indigenous Students Association at the Zulia University (ACEINLUZ) highlighted the impact of CC in places where there are indigenous authorities and even in places where there are not: Regarding the work of the CC, there have been exceptions. There have been CC that have developed a good job, but the results have been different in the Wayuu and Añú communities, is not the same in Bari or yukpa communities, because there is the traditional authority in them, while there are CC. Then both figures are in contradiction. (N. Ceballos, personal interview, January 30, 2014) Meanwhile Guillermo Arana, Piaroa and representative of COIAM, made a balance of negative and potentially positive aspects of the creation of CC: We see as critical to CC: that as time goes by, it is intended to displace autonomous organizations and traditional authorities. The Council of Elders is no longer a relevant figure within the CC, now spokespeople are the relevant figures, but these sometimes are imposed, it is sometimes chosen as spokesperson to the person who agrees with the above characters. That’s the negative part. Positive was that direct actions, direct administration, transparency in the law, monitoring, inspection, approval in the assembly of citizens, this is not true. That part is very difficult for us, it is difficult to take that structure and enforce it, because there could be a direct connection between the state and communities. That is not so.

Many people diverted their interests That has caused divisions within communities and infighting. This, far from doing the work for social welfare, creates confrontation. That’s the trouble. (G. Arana, op cit.)

Guillermo Guevara, PUAMA’s coordinator said: There is a degeneration in the creation of the communes. There are serious problems between indigenous and CC. That is a total deviation of things, even the traditional authorities. Let’s assume that a 15 year old person is a chairman of the CC in a community, the boss is there, the chief, is ignored.

So the exercise of power struggle between the head of the community and the new one is coming in, because the young person, the new leader -resource leaderhave the money and other things that he can give to

31

the community. The breakdown of their relationship begins.

lose of its autonomy. Organizations different from the CC have not full autonomy.

Guevara explains that the implementation of the CC figure for indigenous peoples violated their right to be consulted:

Montiel provides a concrete example of the conflicts in the emergence of CC in communities:

There was no prior and informed consultation for that, so it does not work. The consultation should have been done because the law and CRBV are there, and they say that all the projects should be consulted to the indigenous peoples. “It also describes other irregularities: “When the officials who handled those issues are not interested in a particular indigenous CC, they will find another and make a parallel figure, seeking for the documentation and signs, but sometimes those signs are not real, they are not authentic. All these things are happening here. (G. Guevara, op cit.)

Meanwhile Otilio Santos, Piaroas of Sipapo’s Coordinator (OIPUS), said: Legally you have to work with them but these people do not believe in CC as a commission. They only want to fulfill what they think, what they want.

They are government organizations, and it is a must for them. They do the project about construction of houses, aqueducts, or any other thing, it is just a decision for them. But they do not get into other issues such as territoriality. Through the CC are threats to our territory. Here, in Amazonas it is a concern, because if they are thinking in mining projects we are in danger. And if they make wood projects, is the same. We have concerns about that. (O. Santos, personal interview, November 16, 2013) On the other side of the country, in Zulia State, the Wayuu Jorge Montiel said: It is no secret that CC are blindly loyal to the government. I do not say that CC are the enemy, but I will prefer a structure with its own initiative, its own proposal, not an artificial one, not a commanded one. An organization with its own decision. To Montiel, autonomy is a value of the indigenous organization that blends into the CC: Autonomy is breaking. They do not give full autonomy to indigenous organizations to endorse what is happening in their community as an organization. For example, if a woman gives birth at home and then you go to the registry office and say that in name of the association you are endorsing that this woman gave birth at such time, etc. They say “No, it has to be the CC”, well there you can find a

The CC has all the control, we had an experience in my community because we never wanted to make a CC in my community, called Wayuuma`ana-Kasuusain, (two communities that are divided by a river). We said “Should we create a CC or not?,” we said, “No, why do we have to do it?, If all we have achieved and all what we have done was through our organization, if we have no borders, no limits.” A CC has 4 corners. We said no and we did not. Other people, driven by miners, said that they are organized and opposed to us. They did a CC and we said, “if they want to do so, they can.” Then we had a crash because the CC wanted coal-exploiting machines in the community. First they wanted to make roads, and we know where that comes from: tourism, community development and stuff. We said, “No, we do not agree with that.” And that took a big way. We realized that the municipal government interferes with our autonomy because they supported the CC more than us, even economically, and providing electric lighting and amenities, all those things. And even when we were out of money, we had to fight until we won. Indigenous autonomy is original; no one has the right to force us to do things. We have an indigenous organization, and it is respected, no one will force us.

That was so strong that even the cops want to interfere there and we received anonymous calls threatening when that happened. That was in March of 2012. That was strong. (J. Montiel, op cit.).

Montiel also expressed caution with the creation of the “indigenous communes”: The municipalities are the most dangerous, because they are only three spokespeople that are there. It’s like rule three states with one governor. If he cannot govern a single state, how can he rule three? The same thing happens with the communes. They are only three people. If they were perhaps, traditional authorities it maybe could work, but it is difficult. The state and government tools implement the communes; instead organizations are tools of indigenous peoples.

If the government is going to organize, for example, who is going to participate and who is not going to, that changes everything, perhaps they will eliminate the CC or change its name, but us, the indigenous organizations will not disappear (J . Montiel, op cit.)

Guillermo Arana contributed with more elements:

32

The representatives from the CC are some times lost and tell you: “this is the revolutionary process and that’s how it is.” And I answer: “You can be supportive to the process but you are also indigenous. You were part of the indigenous process before having your red cap, or any color you want to wear. Your identity is indigenous. You have to think as indigenous. Be honest and humble indigenous brother, because your personality, your attitude is not appropriate to strengthen our unity (G. Arana, op cit.).

Guillermo Arana, alongside members of the organization Peace Laboratory

3- . The right to freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression, one of the principles inherent to the right to freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Article 57: Everyone has the right to freely express their thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or any other form of expression and to make use of any kind of media, communication and diffusion, and no censorship shall be established. Anyone making use of this right assumes full responsibility for everything expressed. Anonymity is not allowed, nor war propaganda, discriminatory messages or those promoting religious intolerance. Censorship to public officials or public servants is forbidden for matters within their responsibilities.

This includes articulated indigenous peoples both collectively and individually. Therefore, the Venezuelan government must recognize -by law- and protect indigenous organizations so they can freely express and inform aspects, ideas and opinions in the areas that affect them including those that may be considered criticisms and uncomfortable for the Government.

exercise of self-determination in its internal affairs and the conditions that make them possible.”

The domestic law and state conventions ratified by the state guaranteed the right to indigenous association, they have the right to express themselves and freely seek, receive and disseminate information, communicate and seek cooperation with other indigenous or native or government associations in different areas within the national institutions and outside the country, no limitation other than those expressed in the law itself. Therefore, the capacity, mechanisms and freedom that they have to express themselves freely and without restrictions are enshrined on the laws. The indigenous peoples have also the right to express which of the Government policies are necessary or somehow interfere with their culture, traditions and way of life, and the requirements to achieve and enjoy their rights are proof of good government practices and democratic strength of the nation.

Sixth question: In recent years, indigenous organizations have been able to exercise their right to freedom of expression?

Indigenous organizations have been able to exercise their right to freedom of expression

The LOPCI reaffirms the right to freedom of expression possessed by peoples, communities and organizations when the Article Nº1 states:

completely

Venezuelan State recognizes and protects the existence of indigenous peoples and communities, guaranteeing peoples rights enshrined in the CRBV, international treaties, covenants and conventions and other rules of universal acceptance, and in the same way, other laws of the Republic to ensure their active participation in the life of the Venezuelan nation, the preservation of their culture,

Satisfactorily Irregularly Poorly

33

16% of the interviewees responded that could fully exercise their right to freedom of expression, the same percentage say they have done it in a satisfactorily way, while 31% claimed they experienced irregularities and 37% say that they exercised their right in a deficient manner.

If we add the last 2 lines to infer that organizations have experienced one or several restrictions on the exercise of the right, we found that 68% considered to have been the victim of some kind of restriction.

When interviewed narrated the restrictions experimented, they repeatedly expressed the fear of being criminalized by the federal government if they make criticisms of government management. The testimony of a Zulia activist who requested anonymity because of threats to their integrity can clearly summarizes which was reported by a considerable number of respondent: I do not want to talk about many things. There is much fear of threats related to any denunciation made, because I do not want to be pointed like “I turned” because they will say that I’m from opposition.” The chief who demand land titles is immediately overthrown. There is political pressure to see what I should say and what not.

(Anonymous, op cit).

The testimony of the indigenous Wotjuja (Piaroa) Guillermo Arana, who was supportive to the political project of President Hugo Chavez from the very beginning, explains what has been happening in recent years: One day I said, “We support Chavez, but we cannot speak.

“We can be revolutionary or not, support Chavez or not, but we have to be critical. If you see they are doing a disaster, are you going to be complicit? I, was formed in the -Colombian- Cauca about revolution, and a teacher told me “You have to be a critical revolutionary, nonconformist. The more critical you are, more strength you will have in the revolution. (G. Arana, op cit.)

Arana described how to the requirement of constitutional rights might be ground for disqualification: That’s what we wanted: demarcated territory, self-government, direct resource management, with transparency, with oversight, with respect, all that. We wanted a new homeland. But it does not exist. When we talk about this, some indigenous brothers see that we are not part of them and then tell us “These are from the CIA.” So we are cataloged. “You are getting paid by transnational agencies”, “freeloaders”, “people who disrupt the process”, “He is not with Chavez. (G. Arana, ibid) Professor Vladimir Aguilar (GTAI- ULA), explains: The Indigenous have not been able to say what they wanted. Sometimes they can speak up, but in specific contexts, out of there they cannot speak (V. Aguilar, op cit.). Luis Shatiwe, a Yanomami leader claims that the organization he represents has been through

similar situations when they are disqualified for speaking out in some meetings with government authorities: This movement (Horonami. the organization he represent) is not like they always state: They call us “Saboteurs”. We are told that we sabotage policies, that we speak evil things, that we are “opposed” to the Government” (L. Shatiwe, personal interview, November 16, 2013) Juan Carlos La Rosa explained: There are many levels at proselytizing. The scheme has been like: If the government does not like the speaker, creates a parallel, Yukpas, Bari or whomever they want.

They say: “This is our interlocutor”. (J. La Rosa, op cit.)

Meanwhile, those organizations prior to the current political project that have maintained their autonomy and characteristics and those that have been chosen to follow their customs and traditions express have been subject to discrimination and exclusion as a valid interlocutor by national Government. When you submit requests and requirements, the Government say that they have privileged relations with indigenous or political organizations that are ideologically appropriate to government plans, and adequate to the organizational participation figures, that are imposed from the regulatory framework adopted in recent years, to build the new communal state.

Another of the most common constraints related in the testimony is the growing impediment to access to public media, radio, newspapers or television to raise complaints, requests, criticisms or challenges to public policy or deficiencies in the enjoyment of any right. This must be added to the disqualification when they speak through the private media, so indigenous organizations are subjected directly or indirectly to double victimization, as a consequence of the inexcusable invisibility of their opinions or problems since they are not being able to use any media. This becomes another of the most serious and repeated restrictions on the right. Professor Lusbi Portillo, indigenous and human rights defender is emphatic in his words: In many newspapers and broadcasters do not accept indigenous peoples. And if an indigenous leader appears in what they call “private media” he will be pointed as an enemy of the government. (L. Portillo, op cit.)

In the present study we found that despite the promotion and government investment in alternative and community national media, there is a scarce in print, television, radio or digital formats independently managed by indigenous or their organizations to give visibility to their approaches.

In Zulia state exists Wayuunaiki3, a newspaper with information about the indigenous peoples of Venezuela and Colombia –Perijá, basically-. In radio, the national network Fé y Alegría trains indigenous journalists to make reports on the problems of their community. Also in Zulia,

34

Laguarura.net is a website that reports some struggles of indigenous peoples, especially those of La Sierra de Perijá and Venezuelan Guajira. The weakness of the information policy of indigenous organizations is evident, because neither of the regional organizations and coalitions visited in Zulia, Bolívar and Amazonas has its own website, and even CONIVE, the regional organization, has only an outdated web site since 2006.

Unfortunately there have been experiences where the same pattern of party cooption and exclusion is repeated for political and ideological reasons in the State, with alternative and community media: The government began to make some indigenous news and when they start to question government policy taken out to peers production, as happened with Jorge Montiel. (J. La Rosa, op cit.).

The Maikiralasa’lii organization born from the need of the Wayuu indigenous ethnic group to have their own organization with autonomy for the defense of the right to land and the environment in the Sierra de Perija, in Zulia, after the approval of the expansion project of coal mining on their ancestral lands. Jorge Montiel, a Wayuu leader and Maikiralasa’lii founder member, who joined to the political project of Hugo Chávez since 1998, participated as a documentary filmmaker and produced a program called “Indigenous News” that are transmitted by Radio Nacional de Venezuela, and also by the channel VIVE TV, an alternative channel at first, that was later incorporated into the structure of state public media, and without explanation, they begin to stopped transmitting some indigenous news programs. In a public letter subscribed by the organization Homo et Natura to Blanca Eckout, president of the TV channel (now a deputy for the ruling party), it is stated: ’Indigenous News’ should be protected by you, by the President Chavez himself and by the Venezuelan State, it can not be thrown into the street, because national and international capital will not sponsor a program of indigenous, specially a program like this one, that is questioning the projects against the indigenous peoples of Zulia, projects that the regional and global environmental movement has been struggling with, such as coal mining or mega development projects linked to IIRSA or Puebla Panama Plan(...) This program, its production and its people, including Jorge Montiel, is highly esteemed by us, we will feel excluded if you do not allow the daily continuation of it, as other friends in Vive Zulia intends, with other reasons not binding to the struggles of the indigenous peoples (Homoetnatura, 2006).

Subsequently, Maikiralasa’lii was invited to speak on 3.

4.

5.

6.

the Second Meeting of the Zapatistas in San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico, about the activities they carried out and the situation faced in Zulia. Jorge Montiel with another Wayuu indigenous attended to the event. In an interview with the newspaper “EL LIBERTARIO” he reports the experience: They loved that there was an organization in Venezuela that is not addressed to any political parties. When we explain everything about the struggle, the Zapatistas said: “They are the first Venezuelan indigenous organization that is not wearing a red shirt and cap. We have seen many organizations from Venezuela, speaking about all kind of things but not explaining the reality. “We speak without any intent to attack the government of President Chavez, we explain our own truth, (...) We also clarified publicly that we were not Chavista or anti-Chavista (...) When we returned our struggle was clearer, because we discovered we were not alone “(El Libertario, 2007).

Upon his return, Montiel was invited to a workshop on Radio Nacional de Venezuela, but when he got there, he received a communication, telling him he was out off the participation list because he signed a letter explaining the situation of the indigenous people of Zulia, that was distributed in the event. Now that’s a retaliation against us” (...) “We can not critique anything. This is expressly said to the person who invited us. In Mexico we have already said: we could be victims of a police chase against our environmentalists partners and us (El Libertario, ibid). Jorge Montiel was removed from the production of indigenous news and from all state media.

Indigenous peoples communities and organizations welcomed the inclusion of their rights in Chapter VIII of the constitution (CRBV), and subsequently in the LOPCI, with the process of visibility of the indigenous subject, they also achieved an emotional relationship with the figure of the late President Hugo Chavez and the incorporation of a large number of indigenous peoples in the political project represented by him. It went from a process of claiming rights to an autonomous struggle of the indigenous peoples with a growing incorporation of consequent ideological partisan and political cooptation by the national government for the so-called Bolivarian revolution, and later in the achievement of socialism of XXI Century. The practical emphasis of the government to smudge and blend the state, the ruling party and the government as benefactor of the people, including indigenous; passing laws and new channels with the state; and the duty of loyalty to access to resources, influenced and forced the indigenous to gradually agree to the replacement of traditional forms, customs and traditions in their relationship with the state. This has directly permeated the culture, identity, traditions, daily life, including ways of relating to the State and also internally in their own

Their website is at http://www.wayuunaiki.org.ve/ Their website is at http://radiofeyalegrianoticias.net/ Their website is at http://laguarura.net/ Their website is at http://www.conive.org/

35

communities or between communities and villages.

The right to freedom of expression for indigenous organizations is going through a strong political and ideological restrictions for reasons that undermine not only the enjoyment of this right. The autonomy to express positions in defense of indigenous peoples and communities is really affected. There is a troubling contradiction and non-adherence to constitutional legal framework, international commitments and indigenous legislation. The principle of freedom of association based on what they can freely express, needs a real commitment by the Venezuelan government to respect traditional forms of indigenous organization, access and enjoyment of human rights are not conditional on their involvement or adherence to any ideological political project.

4.- The right to communication and cooperation An inherent principle of the right to association is the right to communication and cooperation, this implies that both individuals and organizations including indigenous, should enjoy the freedom to broadcast information, access to technology communications that allows them to establish networks and linkages within and outside the borders of the country and should not be restrictions to strengthen economic ties with these indigenous and social organizations.

In Venezuela there are no limitations to the type of legal relationship building and networking among organizations at national and international levels, however there is a process of harassment and disqualification if these networks or links are established with organizations or individuals identified as contrary to the projects and policies from the government. The activist and advocate of indigenous rights from Machiques, who asked to remain anonymous, said: There are meetings to publicly tell the Indigenous who will not participate in meetings with people who do not agree with the Bolivarian process (Anonymous, op cit).

They call me “Shatiwe meets the people who come to the center”, “Shatiwe meets such a part.” Last week someone tells me that the Special Action Group (EAG), which are the military, the civilian intelligence say Who do you collect, with whom you speak, who you call? This is happening to me. I did not steal anything, I have not killed anyone, I must not be judged. (L. Shatiwe, op cit.)

5.-The right to freedom of peaceful assembly The CRBV states in Article 53: Everyone has the right to meet publicly or privately, without prior permission, for lawful purposes and unarmed. Meetings in public places shall be done in accordance to the law. Therefore, representatives of indigenous organizations must enjoy the right to assemble peacefully. They do not need prior permission and can do it in private or public sites based on their uses, traditions and customs in accordance with the law.

The Venezuelan Constitution establishes a distinction between the right to assembly and the right to peaceful demonstration and peaceful protest, specified in Article 68: Citizens have the right to demonstrate, peacefully and unarmed, with no other requirements than those established by law. The use of firearms and toxic substances in order to control demonstrations are prohibited. The law shall regulate the actions of the police and security forces of public order.

Seventh question: Have you been able to exercise the right to demonstrate without interference or restrictions by the Venezuelan State?

54% of the interviewed said that they can fully exercise their rights, 13% satisfactorily, 29% irregularly and 4% poorly. If we add the favorable opinions regarding the exercise of the meeting, we found that 67% believe that

Professor Lusbi Portillo said that the potential disqualification is also because of attending organizations in the international system of protection of human rights: Now just because of the mere fact of going to an international organization is sufficient reason to determine that this is an “enemy of the government” and for the communities (L. Portillo, op cit.).

They were able to exercise their right to freedom of assembly

There is also harassment because of the partnerships involved in their operation. The Yanomami Luis Shatiwe reported:

Completely Satisfactorily Irregularly

They tell me with whom I meet? I do not know if there is one videographer, a cameraman, I do not know.

Poorly

36

there are no restrictions to this right. The remaining 33% say they have had some obstructions.

One of the most disturbing evidence comes from an activist and advocate for the rights of indigenous peoples in Zulia, who says that while restraint is not exercised by the state forces, it has been done through organizations like Frente Francisco de Miranda (FFM), an initiative funded through the Ministry of social participation (currently communes and social movements.) The FFM describes itself as an organization Created with the need in the Venezuelan revolution to have solids stakeholders, as required in the deep processes of change, reforms and transformations. It is an antiimperialist, dynamic and organized disciplined political organization; (...) a tool that supports the missions and contribute to the successful development of the programs promoted by the revolutionary government for the benefit of the poorer classes, corresponding to the Bolivarian ideas and thinking of Commander Chavez. We are in every corner of the country on a daily surrendering of our lives to achieve a more just, equal, full of solidarity, fraternity and given to the selfless humanitarian aid without expecting or receiving anything in return, but the prosperity of our country. (Frente Francisco de Miranda, 2011) According to the story: There is a community here in the Shirapta area and there are places where the front (FFM) is very strong.

And I said to them, walking at night, they do not allow any other intervention here. In fact they have made our work and our lives miserable. The people involved here are very young boys from the same community. If we had a meeting, they go from house to house, threaten people, say, â&#x20AC;&#x153;stop joining the oppositionâ&#x20AC;?. But people still keep joining us, despite the threats. They came to the assemblies we have with them, and then go home to threaten houses. (Anonymous, op cit.)

Subsequent to 2002, the national government has implemented a policy of creating social organizations in various orders related to project accounting. In late 2010, with the approval of all laws of popular power from the state has been addressed the possibility of limited resources for the benefit of indigenous communities, including various other organizations to these new forms of popular power. The practice of political surveillance in low-income communities and indigenous peoples has been a constant in recent years. Whether through the CC, collectives and through electoral battle units Hugo ChĂĄvez (UBCH), the performance of these organizations as mechanisms of social control and surveillance is real, they are limiting and interfering in some cases with the right to freedom of assembly in autonomous organizations.

Indigenous organizations are no an exception to this reality of auto inhibitory behavior in the meetings located in vulnerable areas conducive to surveillance, that can subsequently be identified as anti-government organizations, with the risk of being criminalized in public opinion, which has interfered with their traditional ways of call in assemblies and discussions on issues, actions, demands and claims against the State.

6.-The right to peaceful demonstration or right to peaceful protest The right to demonstrate peacefully as enshrined in Article 68 of the CRBV, like all human rights and extend to cover indigenous, peoples, communities and indigenous organizations. Assumes that people, either individually or collectively can demonstrate peacefully in public places on the issues that are of their interest. The law specifies that no permission are required, only showing a notification is enough so to the authorities concerned to take the necessary measures to ensure that the demonstration is carried out without damages to the people participating or others. In peaceful demonstrations by indigenous, the law protects their traditions, customs and cultural ways to manifest, therefore, are allowed, their costumes, rituals, modes, tools and worldview that give life to his identity. The intrusion by the State in the freedom to protest peacefully is justified only when it is in conformity with the law in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public morals or public health, or the protection of rights and freedoms of others.

Eighth question: Have you been able to exercise your right to peaceful protest?

70% of the interviewed considered that the right to peaceful demonstration is affected. 44% considered that it has been able to exercise it irregularly, 26% of poor form. 30% of the total, considers that there have been no limitations to it. 17% it has done satisfactorily and 13% fully.

The testimonies of those who feel that the right is affected are different from each other. However, the researcher, rector of the indigenous University of Tauca and renowned defender of the rights of indigenous peoples Esteban Emilio Mosonyi summarizes clearly similar experiences: Not from the top but from the media leadership, both of ruling party and civil-service medium and lowlevel; Yes they have hampered indigenous mobilizations, especially when that was interfering with vested interests, e.g. farmers, also some military officers, including development plans not consulted with communities.

(E Mosonyi, op. cit)

37

The researcher Minerva Vitti, who analyzes the exercise of indigenous rights to Provea, reaffirms the practice of obstruction of the right: There is always a criminalization to their protests.

They cannot express themselves or are simply not attended. For example what happened in 2012: people traveled from the mountains up to here, a trip that should last 12 hours, through the obstacles on the road lasted 30 hours. And then not attended them. (M. Vitti, op. cit)

They have been able to exercise their right to peaceful protest

Completely Satisfactorily Irregularly Poorly

27 HOURS OF TRAVEL ON A JOURNEY THAT IS PERFORMED WITHIN 12 HOURS, IT TOOK THEM TO REACH INDIGENOUS EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO PROTEST Wednesday, November 07, 2012, 48 Yukpas arrived to Caracas to claim the MINPI and the Foreign Ministry, for the abuses and violations of human rights in their communities. Within the objectives of this mobilization, it was the claim of the right to their lands as established by article 119 of the Constitution, the fulfillment of the payment of the benefits of the farms and plots approved by the National Executive, as well as the demarcation of other farms in the area of the Tukuko. At the same time, they would be asked about the investigations of the 9 Yukpa killed, demanding guarantees, respect, rights and protection of life. On November 05 at 7 pm, the indigenous came to the capital of the country where they would be received by organizations that would accompany its manifestation (society Homoetnatura, 2012). On November 6, indigenous peoples warn organizations

in Caracas that the bus where they were traveling was stopped on several occasions by members of the GNB (Miliary forces), first in an alcabala in Maracaibo, Zulia, where were interrogated and requested to show their documents of identity, then in the Alcabala Yaracal, in falcon, they were questioned again, and checked their IDs. They reported those actions coming from a Commission of the Minpi, who would be preventing their arrival to Caracas (Aporrea, 2012).

Subsequently, were arrested again in Valencia, Carabobo, and with no explicit reason The security forces detained Gaby Fernรกndez, only surviving son of Ana Fernรกndez, also mother of Alexander Fernรกndez, a Yukpa leader and defender of their rights, who was killed for his fight on the demarcation of Lands (Aporrea, ibid.).

38

After 24 hours of travel and be retained in 7 different checkpoints, they were stopped and harassed by the GNB in Aragua (Aporrea, 2012). That same day in the afternoon indigenous partner organizations issued a statement denouncing the limitations and rights violations that indigenous were being subjected to.

After 27 hours, the Yukpas arrived in Caracas and ended its journey by walking, without any vehicle (Aporrea, 2012). The next day, Thursday, November 08, 2012 when they were concentrated at the headquarters of the Vice Presidency, Nicolás Maduro expressed that he would meet with the protesters but after several hours they were not attended. In the evening, they decided to go to one of the studies of the main TV channel of the State, Venezolana de Television, where the journalist Vanessa Davies was transmitting a live program, to make the situation visible, they placed banners on the glass, but the program was transmitted with a red curtain replacing the usual background images and also silencing the protest. This stupor generated at the national level, because of the violation of their rights, generated to grant a 30-minute session on November 09, 2011 in State television to express their complaints.

Another limitation expressed by indigenous peoples and representatives of indigenous organizations is to exert the right to demonstrate without been attended by State officials, so their actions do not have the enough impact, and there is no real responses from those who

have a legal obligation to provide them. Minerva Vitti expressed: You have to be 3 or 4 days with the children, and the people organizing themselves to see where to sleep, where to eat, it is always like a sabotage. “They make the effort to come here and express them and are not heard. They are forced to visit several institutions and government agencies but at the end, they are going unanswered (M Vitti, op. CIT).

Juan Carlos La Rosa shared this assessment: They have had the opportunity to express themselves but they have not been heard. (J La Rose, op. CIT).

Monday, June 17, 2013, representatives of 12 indigenous organizations of different ethnic groups arrived to Caracas from Amazonas. They were exercising their right to peaceful demonstration and asking to be heard by the Minpi, in order to consider the problems in their communities, the consequences of the mining concessions in their territories and demanding to stop the policies of exclusion that they are suffering. After five fruitless days, Friday, June 21, they did a peaceful protest in the square of UNEARTE (University of arts) and convened a press conference to denounce the denial of their right to be served. They should return to their communities without answers (Aporrea, 2013).

Yukpa chief Sabino Romero

7. Video available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNSiOYv21Pg última revisión 28/03/2013 8. Video available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTiDcihtFlk#t=252, y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phUPNvzNtDo last review 25/03/2014

39

CASE: ASSOCIATION HOMO ET NATURA Y PROVEA Perhaps the most alarming case of clear actions by the Venezuelan State to limit the full exercise of the right to indigenous protest, is expressed in the trial that was conducted against human rights organizations recognized in the country for its extensive work and commitment with the rights of indigenous communities and peoples. The society Homo et Natura and the Venezuelan program of education and action in human rights (Provea).

On July 21, 2010 Yukpas, including children and adolescents, were stood in front of the Supreme Court of Justice in peaceful protest demanding to apply the special indigenous jurisdiction recognized in the Constitution and in the LOPCI, for the administration of justice based on indigenous law in conflicts only affecting its members. PROVEA, who has historically accompanied the indigenous struggles, welcomed the call of support and published the call to the peaceful demonstration that was carried out, and disseminated information of what happened during the days of the protest in their web site. The society Homo et natura, organization that defends the right of indigenous peoples in its demand for the demarcation of territory and the right to land in the Sierra de Perijá, performed escort and activities of visibility through distribution of flyers to sensitize the population about the importance of respect for indigenous law and traditional forms of justice.

27th July 2010, the Prosecutor Nº106 of the public prosecutor’s Office, introduced a protective action in favor of boys, girls and adolescents who were in the peaceful demonstration, requesting that they were returned to their “atmosphere of culture,” and the establishment of the responsibility of the society Homo Et Natura and Provea in its transfer to the city of Caracas, affirming that infants and young would be used as “human shields”. This trial, was enabling to criminalize any peaceful protest based in the indigenous worldview and traditions, since in this case, the Yukpas mothers never separated from their child. The Yukpa family moved with all its members, even in actions of protest. Separate the children from their mothers limit the possibility of the indigenous communities to exercise their legitimate right. On the other hand, it would set a very serious jurisprudence for civil society organizations that decide to support and show solidarity with actions of protest from any organization, vulnerable group or victims. On May 14, 2013, the trial was dismissed for lack of evidence.

However the action set a precedent of the Government action, trying to criminalize the solidarity between the demands of indigenous rights organizations and try to limit that organizations, communities and indigenous peoples exercise their right to peaceful demonstration based on their identity, tradition and culture.

Concentration in the trial against Homoetnatura and Provea

9. To read the position on the trial of the organization Provea consulting: http://www.derechos.org.ve/2013/01/17/a-juicio-provea-y-sociedad-homo-et-natura-por-apoyar-protesta-indigena/ last review 20/03/2014 10. For Provea opinion on the conclusion of the trial, see: http://www.derechos.org.ve/2013/05/14/finaliza-juicio-contra-provea-y-homo-et-natura-por-falta-de-argumentos-de-la-fiscalia/last review 20/03/2014

40

7.- The right to seek and obtain resources Associations, including the indigenous people, have the right to seek and obtain funds from licit sources from people, civil society, international agencies and local, national, and foreign Governments. Having access to resources cannot be subject to prior authorization by the State. In Venezuela, there is a growing process of criminalization against organizations that receive resources from international cooperation, especially if it comes from American aid agencies. Through the State public media have been campaigns against human rights organizations because of foreign funding.

This campaign of State-criminalization to external financing, was exacerbated in 2010, through the text of the Ministry of the Popular power for communication and information in Venezuela, made by Eva Golinger and Jean Guy Allard about the USAID, NED and CIA. The permanent aggression, widely disseminated by the State media said that international cooperation of United States with organizations of civil society in Venezuela intended to destabilize the domestic political process. In 2010 Golinger said: Since 2002, in Venezuela operates an office of democratic transition assembled by United States (...) “The CIA, which employs the DAI as window dressing, “funds sectors of the opposition, financing the destabilization. (…) The DAI “denies relationship with the CIA”; however, it actually has them and very openly with organizations that are financial arms of the State Department of the United States, such as the National Endowment for Democracy. The contractors, among others, are: the International Republican Institute, the International Democrat Institute, Freedom House and the Pan American Development Foundation, which has invested about $ 50 million since 2002 in the Venezuelan counterrevolution. Between 2002 and 2004, DAI funded 64 opposition organizations. This year, over 500 organizations are receiving American resources.

(Correo del Orinoco, 2010) The criminalization against organizations of all kinds:

project (...) It is very dangerous, because they finance the destabilization and promote the interests of the United States. And the Bolivarian Revolution, socialism of the XXI century and President Chavez are not part of their interests. We recall that they participated in the coup of 2002, and also in the oil sabotage. Now the main tactic is subversive (Correo del Orinoco, ibid) On December 14, 2010 The Law of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination (LSPAN), was published in Official Gazette No. 6,013. Its object is defined as: Protect the exercise of political freedom and national self-determination against any foreign interference through funding or financial support that may be intended to undermine the stability and functioning of democratic institutions and regulate the protection of the State, related to participation of nationals or foreigners in the country, under the patronage of Venezuelans, political organizations or organizations for the defense of political rights, discredit, disrespect to state institutions, their functioning and their representatives.

From that moment, in Venezuela, any organization could be described as “political” by the state and punished for receiving foreign funding.

Ninth question: Are there undue control over the sources of funding?

In the study, 70% of representatives of indigenous organizations interviewed have said that improper inspections have been done by the Venezuelan state on sources of funding.

Most indigenous organizations and defense of Venezuelan indigenous rights remain as testimonies of support from the community in which they are inserted, so their funding sources are a mixture of self-management cooperation alliances made with local organizations and international cooperation. Luis Shatiwe, from the Horonami Yanomami organization, describes it as follows:

Undue control over the sources of funding

They finance political parties, media strategy, training for election observers, leadership workshops, they help to mount the radio and television commercials, campaign design and provide funding to certain nongovernmental organizations (...)

In all these activities “activity reports, and meetings are held.” According to the American-born lawyer all these activities are planned to: Continue to fund destabilization campaigns against the Bolivarian Revolution. They are working on the legislative elections of this year. They want to drive a

41

The organization has no budget and no economic power. Lives only with the will to defend life and defend territories or defend our interest in any conflict what we have with the Venezuelan society, authorities of the country (L. Shatiwe, op. Cit).

When asked what were their sources of funding, Gregorio Mirabal, ORPIA General Coordinator responded: In collaboration with partner institutions in this new stage we do not even have an account number at the bank. Formerly ORPIA had agreements with Unicef, Embassies, NGOs and National Institutions. Our financial system is undergoing a review. (G. Mirabal, op. Cit) Guillermo Guevara explains: In ORPIA we have a Congress that we did with the very firm and strong support of our friends, embassies and NGOs. And now it has become difficult because we see it as another issue, especially the legal system, the system of power. They look like they are spies; they are strangers or something that will hurt the government.

So there are no resources. (G. Guevara, op. Cit) The defender Lusbi Portillo of Homo et Natura, has suffered the accusations, threats and insults from his work in defense of the rights of indigenous people for the possible source of funding: If we receive founds from an embassy or seek funding to an organization, then say we are CIA agents. I did an interview with a television station and they asked me â&#x20AC;&#x153;Who gives you the founds to travel to the UN, the OAS? These rights are limited. Two months ago, following the death of Sabino, a member of CICPC called me in for questioning. I went because I have nothing to hide and those were the things they asked me. Yes, constitutional rights are formally but in practice we are criminalized, everything grouped in a free form is criminalized. (L. Portillo, op. Cit).

(13) Alexis Romero, Pemon leader

8.- The State Duty to Protect All States have the duty to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, must refrain from interfering in the enjoyment of these. Privacy of members of an association must be respected, and the physical integrity guaranteed. No one shall be subjected to discrimination or criminalization by any public official or state institution to defend their right to association, victims, vulnerable groups or society in general have the right to exercise this freedom. In the First Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, paragraph 63 reads: It is essential that people who exercise the right to freedom of association can act freely, without fear of possible threats, intimidation or violence, such as summary or arbitrary executions, enforced or involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, smear campaigns in the media, travel bans and arbitrary dismissals for ... / HRC / 20/27. 21.05.2012.

He continues: 77.

States have the obligation to establish accessible and effective complaints mechanisms that can investigate independently, quick and thorough reports of violations or abuses of human rights, to demand accountability for perpetrators. This procedure not only guarantees an end to the violation, but also to prevent its recurrence in the future. Specific attention should be paid to the members of the risk groups mentioned in paragraph 13. â&#x20AC;&#x153; Which states: â&#x20AC;&#x153;2. This applies in particular to children, indigenous peoples, (...) freedom of peaceful assembly and association are fundamental human rights that are part of international human rights law and are enshrined in the Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When we analyze the performance of good practice, we find evidence that there is a wealth of state laws that make it advisable to implement actions for the state to protect the exercise of rights by the society in general.

However, in reality there are specific events and testimonies showing that there are significant blockages.

(14) Wataniba Organization, Puerto Ayacucho

42

(15) Natalie Vasquez, journalist

CASE: I REGIONAL SUMMIT OF INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS OF THE AMAZON BASIN (COICA) By 2013, It corresponded to Amazonian indigenous organizations in Venezuela to host the COICA. Finding resources for this event is done through the various organizations that are part of the South American network. Venezuelans Amazonian indigenous applied for funding to Venezuelan state, but they did not receive the founds, International aid agencies offered to provide the resources for the realization of the event.

Guillermo Guevara explains: ORPIA had the responsibility by statutory rules of COICA to organize the congress and corresponded to host on Venezuelan Amazon. But they changed the plans and decided to do it in the Colombian Amazon.

Why? Because government reactions afraid the people. Because of the discomfort, they seek elsewhere and we missed the opportunity to do the congress and be a little stronger as organization. I had the opportunity to ride a major international event, but now that opportunity is lost. If I had support from the Government, it would have been nice, not so much for us but for indigenous peoples in the Amazon, because there were countries involved wanted to see the reality of what is happening in Venezuela.

(G. Guevara, op. Cit)

The event was performed in the Colombian Amazon from December 13 to 15, 2013 in the town of Villavicencio. Gregorio Mirabal, ORPIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s coordinator concludes: We prefer to leave it for later and have more time to prepare the event, make a congress in Amazonas funded by international donors have meant disqualification thereof by sectors linked to the national government. (G. Mirabal, op. Cit) In Venezuela, indigenous associations and other organizations, are self-limiting to go to some funding sources and consequently have been diminished their capacity to performing activities that are specific to defend their rights. Receiving external financing could mean the criminalization of their work through officials of the Government or state media and disqualification in their communities, including in some cases the rejection of their beneficiary because of the fear of being excluded from state benefits or suffer disqualification to be related to the organization.

I Amazon Regional Summit of the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin, Villavicencio, Colombia

43

Tenth question: Have you received the members of the organization are attacks by public officials?

One negative in the opposite state practice their obligation to protect the criminalization of victims organizations, towns, communities, indigenous or representatives of associations for the protection of indigenous peoples, when they make criticism of government actions. 78% of respondents said they received verbal abuse, threats or have been criminalized by public officials.

One of the most dramatic cases of criminalization by the Venezuelan State to an organization for the defense of indigenous rights has been against Homo et Natura Association and its representative on human rights defender Lusbi Portillo, also a member of the Environmental Federation of Zulia and the National Front for the Defense of Water and Life.

Attacks on members of the organization by public officials

CASE OF LUSBI PORTILLO, HOMO ET NATURA ASSOCIATION Lusbi Portillo, professor at the University of Zulia and General Coordinator of the NGO Sociedad Homo et Natura, with 29 years as a defender of indigenous rights and the environment in Sierra de Perija, Zulia. His advocacy of indigenous peoples and communities, the demarcation of territory, no coal mining and environmental protection has made it the subject of countless attacks by government officials and others. Beginning in 2008 with the recovery of land by the indigenous Yukpas, Lusbi Portillo became a victim of verbal attacks, insults and accusations through public and private means, with consequent limitation of access to the mountains of Perija. In repeated testimonies of indigenous activists and human rights defenders, serious threats to his integrity and life are observed, and the situation has escalated alarmingly the last four years: On March 25, 2011, Lusbi Portillo had an intervention in the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (HRC),

to explain the situation of the Yukpas, specifically the case of Sabino Romero (Yukpa cacique) and Alexander Fernandez, both under a process of criminalization and threats by state officials. He explained how only days before of its public and communicational trip this to the Commission, the national government agreed to what had been denied for years: This situation changed dramatically when the Venezuelan government knew of our interest in this subject, and about the hearing in the HRC; a week before, Judge Moreno Matheus denied the request, but the following week he admitted ordering a Preliminary Injunction on bail and continued the public trial release.

Vice President, Elias Jaua ordered to communicate with the families of Sabino Romero, and appointed a committee to learn more about the case and the situation of indigenous peoples and communities in Venezuela, a

44

situation which we applaud as we have been since 2004 with a policy of rapprochement with the government and what we have received is the criminalization of activists of the NGO Sociedad Homo et Natura, and especially its General Coordinator Professor Lusbi Portillo, who is accused of manipulate the indigenous, of been an opponent and an enemy of the Government, a CIA paramilitary and from October 13, 2009 as a drug dealer.

(Ensartaos, 2011).

On October 12, 2011, President Hugo Chavez announced the approval of the States payment in Yukpa territory, but recovering only 25 farms. Zenaida Romero, daughter of Chief Sabino Romero, says : Behind us, at a political event with the Great Patriotic Pole’s, President Hugo Chavez signed our land title with a Yukpa citizen named Ciro Landino, who is no authority nor chosen by the Yukpa people to represent us. Is a fourpage document, and at the end of the third page also recognize that third parties rights, like the miners; and the document was not delivered accompanied by a map, so we do not know what the boundaries of our territory, finally recognized by the state government are. (Urgent Patria, 2012).

On January 10, 2012, Sociedad Homo et natura, disseminated a text, questioning the conditions where there is collective ownership because it is shared with third parties rights, and the exclusion of Yukpas legitimate institutions and authorities for that titling. (Aporrea, 2011) The indigenous affairs minister moves to Zulia, on January 15, 2012 and sign a press release, published by the official website of Minpi, that reads: Surprise was approached by the various indigenous leaders. They rejected the complaint made by Professor Lusbi Portillo, This insult was not only for Indigenous, but also for the President and the Revolution stated. Chief Alfonso Itnopa, greater of the Communal Territory “The Tukuko”: This letter is nothing more than writing by a stateless person, a counterrevolutionary writing that disrespects the Indigenous intelligence and shows that this teacher has never been with the struggle of indigenous peoples,” said Eladio Akadaya, Asobariven president. Continuing the note, the minister, “gave a boost to the statements made by the chiefs and said “this is a manifestation of the level of awareness of our indigenous peoples, that are increasingly clear with the historical moment that our country is living “( ...) “While continuing the vicious attacks of the opposition to the achievements during these 12 years of Revolution. (...) The Minister Nicia Maldonado who expressed Indigenous slogans and applause progress of the various programs promoted by

the Revolution and sent a clear message to President Chavez, manifesting that Yukpa, the Bari and the Wayuu are Perijá revolutionaries. (MINPI, 2012) That same day, the five chiefs present at this meeting were flown to the capital to participate in state media: We come to deny what they have been manipulating on the delivery of securities, which are faked, that have other interests” (...) “with this publication, what is clear is that they have other interests are the activists, not even live there and have wanted to participate in the exploitation of these lands. We are the ones we live and we know what happens in our communities While expressing that there are only two ways, capitalism and socialism, we are very clear that our path is socialism led by President Chavez, said Alfonso Itnopa. (MINPI, 2012) In March 2012, the attack against the defender continued through state media, in a of note the Venezuelan News Agency (AVN): Indigenous Peoples of Sierra de Perija, Zulia, reject the handling that over our right has been done in this region by spreading rumors about land demarcation to create division in the local communities.” Jorge Luis Romero, senior chief at the center Toromo Perija, expressed his opposition “to the anti demarcation and antigovernment campaign that sectors of the political right have been performing” (...) The community spokesman Francisco Silva said that representatives of the NGO Sociedad Homo et Natura, along with environmentalists and academics have disseminated messages in national and international media with the intent to delegitimize the land titles. Silva said that Homo et Natura Society dates from 40 years of working with environmental movements, but it is an organization from the political right, but have no work within communities to empower indigenous development, and seek to usurp functions of older chiefs. “ (AVN 2012) Zenaida Romero, daughter of Chief Sabino Romero traveled to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, from May 7 to 18, 2012. She presented a paper explaining the situation of Yukpas, and requested the agency to make a call to Venezuelan State, to protect the life of his father; investigations in the murders of indigenous Yukpas, respect on the demarcation of lands, payments of the constructions made on their territories and respect for traditional Yukpas authorities. (Patriaurgente, 2012).

In a statement by the Minister of indigenous affairs, Nilcia Maldonado, about the journey of Zenaida Romero, said this is a sister who unfortunately has been manipulated by the NGO Homo et Natura and their representatives, making her

45

believe that the President would pay the debt in 2014, we are very sorry, because she had that belief for something that is not true (MINPI, 2012).

In January 2013, Sociedad Homo et Natura and Provea are informed of the admission of a judgment against both organizations for supporting a peaceful demonstration of Yukpas at the headquarters of the Supreme Court of Justice in July of 2010, the trial began on February 7, 2013.

On March 3, 2013, the Chief Sabino Romero was murdered. On 28/03/13, Homo et natura complaint about the statement of an Attorney in Machiques, Jhovanna Molero, who publicly said that the CICPC has a list with the name of the activist Lusbi Portillo to be imprisoned for incitement to violence in yukpa communities. (The Guarura, 2013). The ULAM network broadcasted an urgent action in protection of Lusbi Portillo: Homo et Natura -affiliated to ULAM networkdenounced on March 28, 2013 a public comment by the prosecutor NÂş20, Jhovanna Molero, in which she appointed Professor Lusbi Portillo as part of a list of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations (CICPC), to be imprisoned for â&#x20AC;&#x153;inciting violence between yukpa community.â&#x20AC;? This act of criminalization threatens the freedom of the teacher and defender of human rights of

indigenous peoples, Lusbi Portillo, and trembles with fear all members of Homo et Natura Society (non-profit organization based in Maracaibo defending human rights) as well as the people who see yukpa Professor Portillo as an unconditional friend.

On May 14, 2013 is dismissed the lawsuit against the NGO Homo et natura and Provea, because of the lack of evidences in the case. However, Professor Portillo publicly denounces that he received threats against his life and integrity and seeks protection of the state: I suspect this is related with the whole issue of yukpa people, the land problem. We have reported to law enforcement agencies, the CICPC Machiques and the police in the area. Lately we have also considered how the farmers have taken the land from the Indigenous.

They threatened to kill Sabino, Alexander, and I have to denounce possible actions against my life. Venezuelan State should protect me as a citizen of this country.

(Provea, 2013) In February 2014, as part of an interview conducted at the Zulia University, Portillo reiterated that he can not return to the mountains because his life is priceless, There are gunmen on motorbikes paid for it, and criminalizing against him and the organization he represents.

Lusbi Portillo

46

YUKPA CACIQUE SABINO ROMERO CASE: CHRONICLE OF A FORETOLD DEATH. The case about Homo et Natura Association and Lusbi Portillo can not be separated to the most dangerous precedent of criminalization and lack of state protection against a defender of their rights and also of the indigenous rights: Yukpa chief Sabino Romero, who after receiving harassment, attacks, imprisonment, threats, and after repeated requests for protection culminated in his assassination on 03.03.13.

The Yukpas lives in Sierra de Perija, Zulia, an area between Colombian and Venezuelan extension for over a thousand years ago. In Venezuela there are about 120 communities located in the basins of the Apon, Negro, Tukuko and Yaza rivers, with an estimated of 13,000 indigenous population. They lived in families between the mountains and the foothills of the Sierra de Perija in river basins.

- 40s. At the end of the decade of the 30’s, they began to suffer the invasion of their territory. 400 thousand hectares were loose from their flat lands.

They will not be removed from their land, live around farms and invaded plots.

- 02.02.95: The National Guard killed with a rifle, the Yukpas Felipe Romero, Carmen Romero and José Vicente Romero. The incident is known as the Slaughter of Kasmera.

- 1999: Hugo Chavez Government approved the CRBV and mandate of organization of indigenous territory in 2 years. Yukpas assumed that their territories would be marked and returned.

- September 2001: attempted murder against Chief Sabino Romero, burning of houses, crops and forced evictions of people from their community (Chaktapa).

- 2004: Stagnant in the demarcation process, Yukpas perform various recovery actions on their territories.

- 25.08.04: A group of indigenous advised and supported by farmers with sticks and knives tried to evict Sabino and his family. Government decrees the beginning of the process of demarcation of Yukpa territories.

- 14.04.05: Armed People came to the Chaktapa community to try to kill Sabino Romero.

- September 2005: Yukpa leader Aristides Maikishi was assassinated. Hit men entered in the Seilan farm, claimed by indigenous as part of its territory.

- 08.04.06: Gunmen prevent the Chief Sabino Romero attends a press conference for Yukpa leaders in Machiques.

- 29.04.06: New murder attempt to Sabino Romero.

Community houses were burned.

- 11.02.07: Homes burned again in Chaktapa community. Firearms used against the indigenous.

- All 2007: After delaying the demarcation, Sabino Romero, along with other leaders and Yukpa caciques began the process of land occupation in the basin of river Yaza.

- 23.04.08: New attempt to murder Sabino Romero.

People armed assault the Chaktapa Community at night.

- March and April 2008: The prosecution accused Yukpas María Teresa Yaspe, Ciro Landino and Noelia Romero for alleged crimes related to land reclamation.

- May13 and 21, 2008: Armed People threatened and assaulted verbally and physically Chaktapa community members.

- 07.07.08: The same armed group, led by the owner of the Kusare farm, Alejandro Vargas Chavez returns to threaten and assault members of the community (verbally and physically).

- 22.07.08: The father of Sabino Romero (109 years) dies after 15 days in hospital, being victim of a brutal beating.

- 29.07.08: Provea issued an urgent action at the national and international community: Despite repeated complaints and requests for protection made to the Attorney General’s Office, the Senior Prosecutor of Zulia, the Prosecutor Office of Machiques, the Ombudsman, the Office of delegated Ombudsman office of Zulia, and the Special Ombudsman with National Competition

47

on Indigenous Peoples and its protection areas, The Government and its institutions have not taken the necessary steps to solve the problem and ensure the integrity and life of the community “(...) the competent authorities must investigate thoroughly, promptly and impartially the circumstances of death of José Manuel Romero and take immediate steps to ensure the full protection of the Chaktapa indigenous community, and the termination of the disqualifications to defenders of human rights. It also urges the National Demarcation Commission, the Ministry of Popular Power for the Environment and the National Land Institute to proceed to the demarcation of indigenous lands and habitat, complying with the constitutional mandate.

and Jesús María Semprúm from Zulia, where Yukpa Indigenous are living.

- 24.08.08: President Hugo Chavez ordered to recognizes faults and restart the process of demarcating yukpa territories.

- August 2010: Sabino Romero and Alexander Fernandez were transferred to a National Prison in Trujillo, and with his family having no resources for travel from their communities to Trujillo, were forced to live on the street for 7 months, receiving public charity and selling their crafts. There, the violations of their rights continued, as denounced by Lusbi Portillo:

- March to October 2009. According Lusbi Portillo complaint: A campaign of vilification and criminalization starts by farmers of Machiques and Ministers for Indigenous Peoples Nicia Maldonado, Foreign Affairs and Justice Tarek El Aissami and Vice-Minister of Environment, Sergio Rodriguez, all members of the National Commission on demarcation of indigenous lands and habitat”(...) “begin an approach to Olegario Romero, Chief of Guamo Pamocha community, (...) also with all the chiefs of the Yaza communities, but not with Sabino, who instead was isolated and was criminalized. For their community there were not any bags of food, or homes made with cement and zinc sheets, no school, no legalization of their Community Council and no financing of their community projects. Most of these Yaza caciques begin between August and October of 2009 to manage government and farmers speech, therefore, also begin to charge him with false allegations of theft of cows and horses, as well as a rapist of women.

- 18 .09.09: The rapporteur of Indigenous Peoples of the United Nations, Dr. James Anaya, issued a report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. There are states that a letter was sent to Venezuela on October 22, 2008, asking for information from the situation of Yukpa and Chaktapa peoples. The answer was received on August 26, 2009, signed by the national government. It highlighted that the Decree No. 6,569 was approved on October 14, 2008, and it binds the comprehensive plan for defense, development and consolidation of border municipalities Machíques de Perijá, Rosario de Perijá

- 13.10.09: a confrontation between indigenous, as a result of the internal division is produced. It resulted in 2 indigenous dead, 5 injured and 3 detainees: Sabino Romero Izarra, Alexander Fernandez and Olegario Romero were arrested at a military installation called Fort Macoa and accused on a trial for allegedly killing Ever Romero and Mireña Romero. They stayed 10 months in the military installation and were subjected to various human rights violations. Their families were also subjected to harassment, women had to undress to visit them and Guillermina Romero, daughter of Sabino suffered an attempted rape by a soldier.

Sabino Romero Izarra and Alexander Fernandez suffered physical, psychological and verbal abuse in that prison, the violence came from other prisoners, because the indigenous refused to convert to evangelical religion, thus affecting their cultural identity; they punished the victims, forcing them to be seated all night and early mornings in a chair inside the bathroom, Sabino slept on the floor in a hallway, they were constantly stealing personal belongings of Sabino, he had to paid 50 bolivars to the chief of evangelical hall every week(...) Various demonstrations were made in the Trujillo Prison, as they were threatened of murder.

- 15.03.01: Indigenous prisoners freed, after receiving preliminary injunction, which gives them the benefit of being tried in freedom.

- 25.03.11: Regional thematic hearing on “indigenous jurisdiction and human rights” in the IACHR is performed. The case of Sabino Romero and Yukpas was elevated to that instance. A week before the hearing at the Commission, the judge declined his decision and ordered a precautionary measure on bail and continued public trial release for the Indigenous leader. In turn, the Vice President Elias Jaua, appointed a commission for “deeper investigation” of the case.

- 01.04.11: The Commission called through the public announcement No. 28/11 to observe the “exercise of indigenous jurisdiction” because “is a

48

manifestation of the right to autonomy of indigenous peoples” considering three cases, among which was the case of Yukpa’s chiefs.

- 22.11.11: Sociedad Homo et Natura alleges that from August 2011 to the present date through print media there is a campaign to discredit and accusations of cattle rustling against Chief Sabino Romero, calling it the chronicle of a foretold death: La Verdad (a Newspaper) accuses Sabino, saying: “Since leaving jail, Sabino started again capsizing in the place. They come to our farms armed and hooded and steal the animals (cows, mules and horses), food, the cheese we produce and break everything in their way (...) “He will be kidnapped or murdered, as a consequence of an order from GADEMA. For this reason, the Government, through the Vice President Elias Jaua should order immediately the presence of ministers, Nicia Maldonado and Juan Carlos Loyo, in Chaktapa community.

- 15 .12.11: The Government announces the signing of a document of demarcation. It was in a public event with 5 indigenous chiefs of Sierra de Perija.

- 13.03.12: Eleven Indigenous chiefs of Sierra de Perija, including Chief Sabino Romero, came to Caracas to report they had no participation or consultation to the signing of the document of demarcation: Where are these farms, because we’re not inside them, even today we are not enjoying our rights on those lands and we are here in Caracas, trying to deliver the minutes and ask a legal action, an Assembly is made within the Yukpa People in the Perija, specifically in the Toromo, The Tokuko and Kasmera sector to discuss these titles and they are satisfied.

- 15.04.12: They find two Indigenous Yukpas killed, they were missing since April 13, when they went hunting wild pigs in the basin of Yaza river. Silfrido Romero from Chaktapa, relative of chief Sabino Romero and Ronal Ramos from Kasmera

representatives of the Minpi working in the area as Amalia Pérez, Antonio Romero, Alfonzo Iknopa, among others. Some action must be taken against these officials, who are supportive of a selective campaign that could trigger Sabino, their children and families of Chaktapa community into serial murders.

- 14.05.12: Yukpa leader Zenaida Romero, daughter of Yukpa Chief Sabino Romero, attended the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, held at the United Nations, presenting a paper on the status of Yukpa people. She requested the authorities of the Venezuelan state to: Open an investigation to determine responsibility for assassinations of Yukpas and the injuries that indigenous are struggling with, regarding their lands; she also asked custody and protection for her father, Chief Sabino Romero; a reformulation of land titles recognizing the demarcation made by the communities; constructions made in the farms within Yukpa territory; a plan of indigenous health for the Yukpas; and respect to the figure of the Chiefs, the highest authority of community leadership and not just the top 5 chiefs, recognized in their communities.

- 14 .05.12: Chief Sabino Romero moved to Caracas to denounce irregularities in the land titles delivered by the Government and threatens he had to face; he exposed a complaint about the land title document of Yukpas collective ownership. That document you want us to sign, say we have to live with others people, from outside our peoples and we do not want that” (...)

- 23.06.12: According to witnesses testimonies, National Guard and unidentified people, kidnapped and murder Yukpa leader Alexander Fernández, José Luis Fernandez and Leonel Romero, Sabino Romero’s accompaniers in the fight for territory. Alexander Fernandez was tortured and killed by 2 shots in the eyes.

- July, 2012: Gunmen came to the community Paja Chiquita, and threatened Yukpas of burnig them if not abandon the lands.

- 07.05.12: A new attempt to murder against Chief Sabino Romero was denounced by Homo et Natura. The NGO asked the Venezuelan State:

- September 2012: Sociedad Homo et Natura and community organizations make an urgent appeal to the national government demanding protection for Sabino Romero, Carmen Fernández and Yukpas because armed people arrived at the smallholding “La Estrella”, threatening to kill indigenous.

To give custody to Sabino and his family, as they have started receiving death threats (...) Cease the criminalization by the officials of the Venezuelan Army, Misión Cultura as Inelda Madina, and the

- 27.09.12: Social organizations claim that the GNB of Machiques refuses to provide protection to the mother of Carmen and Alexander Fernández, despite the Order from the Thirty-fifth Attorney prosecutors,

49

contained in memorandum No. 0590-2012, Maracaibo, July 9, 2012.

- 15.10.12: A group of 120 Yukpas occupy the Medellin farm, gunmen and the army fired against Yukpas indigenous women, wounding Zenaida Romero, daughter of Chief Sabino Romero and another women.

- 06.11.12: Yukpas moved to Caracas (to the MINPI and Vice-Presidency) to denounce the abuses and violations of their rights.

- 08.11.12: Chief Sabino Romero complained in Caracas about the murder of 6 Indigenous in the last 10 months, It hurts me that Indigenous have been killed, we are dying every day as consequence of the military and police actions.

- On November 9, 2012. Chief Sabino Romero complaint in state channel (VTV): “In Sierra de Perija there is no law, no solutions.

We have been killed”(...) “ We are not stealing land, we are recovering our territory “(...)” We are revolutionaries. We are socialists from the ancestral times to here. And we say to the president that should put the magnifying glass to what is happening.”

- 11.11.12: Chief Sabino Romero denounced death threats against him.

- 28.12.12: Two army soldiers fire on Franklin Fernández Fernández, Brother of murdered Indigenous leader Alexander Fernandez, the also murdered son of Carmen Fernandez.

- 03.03.13. Cacique Sabino Romero is assassinated.

On this case, Jorge Montiel said: I can not explain how in times of revolution, we are going to kill Indigenous leaders, that is the type of things that happened in the Fourth Republic, and are repeated now in the fifth Republic. More murders of Yukpa are occurring now, that is contradictory to a revolution. Before this process, the indigenous organizations were fighting a lot more, we rarely do, because if you have a position, you are comfortable and then the people disappears. (J. Montiel, op. Cit)

been imprisoned, and interestingly the most affected are basically indigenous with Caribbean affiliation: Pemon, yukpa and Yekuanas. Also Yanomami and Kariñas. About Sabino, I said is the “second death of Guaicaipuro”. But curiously has deeply shocked me that pro-government people baptized, or called the martyrdom of the second Guaicaipuro as another killed because been part of the revolution. But please!

I’m not saying that the president, but surely wide circles of the same government contributed to that.

Sabino was imprisoned in Trujillo, in Zulia, also at Fort Macoa. Our own government has been contributing to that death, with the people on the political right, the landowners, the paramilitaries, the killers, but the Government is also responsible, because governments have more responsibility than any sector of civil society. So, when you are guilty, how do you attribute the death of a martyr who died precisely because of your injury, your politically misguided politics and you’re the actions of your followers?. (E. Mosonyi, op. Cit) On 03.04.13, COIAM issued an statement, expressing their outrage on the murder of Chief Sabino Romero, research and action requested by the Venezuelan state to punish those responsible and said: We express our strong concern about the situation in the village yukpa the Perija (Zulia State) where they have been killed in recent years at least 08 indigenous of this blog can, which has assumed the overall defense of their territory invaded by ranchers and landowners in collusion with military and government officials. (...) We question the impunity surrounding the murders of these indigenous brothers, whose cases have not been investigated by the competent authorities with depth, effectiveness and speed that they required, on the contrary the masterminds and perpetrators of assassinations of Yukpa leaders enjoy complete freedom and power to act. (COIAM, 2013)

Esteban Emilio Mosonyi also said: Indigenous peoples have felt threatened and have

50

9.- The right to political participation.

They were able to exercise their right to political participation in electoral processes

Venezuelan legal framework is guarantor of the right to political participation, in Article 62 states that every citizen has the right to participate freely in public affairs, directly or through representation. Define the role manifests through people’s participation in the formation, implementation and control of public management. Turn requires the State to facilitate and create conditions so that the right is exercised extensively.

Article 70 establishes the mechanisms for participation and leadership, the election of public officials, the referendum, the recall, the legislative initiatives, constitutional and constituent, open forums and meetings of citizens whose decisions are binding, among others.

In Chapter VIII of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities Article 125 states: Indigenous peoples have the right to political participation. The State shall guarantee indigenous representation in the National Assembly and the deliberating organs of federal and local entities with indigenous people, according to law.

Indigenous representation in National Assembly is specified in Article 186: The indigenous peoples of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall elect three deputies in accordance with the provisions of the electoral law, respecting their traditions and customs.

LOPCI in turn, requires the State to promote the principles of a democratic, participatory, protagonist, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual society; and to promote and develop actions to ensure the effective participation of the people, communities and organizations at national, regional and local affairs. On political participation specifically, Article 63 state that: Indigenous peoples and communities have the right to participation and political involvement. To exercise this right is guaranteed indigenous representation in elected office at the National Assembly in legislative councils, municipal and parish in those states with indigenous population or in any other instance both nationally, state and parish, in accordance with the respective laws.

Venezuela ratified Convention Nº 169, effective from May 22, 2002, requiring providing recognition and protection of the right to political participation of indigenous peoples and communities Eleventh question: The Indians have been able to exercise their right to participate in elections?

This study incorporated the question addressed to representatives of indigenous organizations and pro

Completely Satisfactorily Irregularly Poorly

indigenous rights in Venezuela, if the right to indigenous political participation is guaranteed, and if they have been able to participate in the electoral process. 68% say they have exercised their right, 48% felt a complete exercise of that right, 20% answered ‘’satisfactory”, while 20% said to have been irregularly and only 12% believe that poorly.

In purely electoral terms the right to political participation is fulfilled in the precepts laid down in the law, but when we go deeper about what influenced indigenous participation and representation in decisionmaking bodies in the promotion, defense and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities of the testimonies allow government practices spot on respect and guarantee the same quality and dignified for indigenous peoples and their associations.

The researcher and defender of the rights of indigenous Alejandro Lanz said the election of indigenous representatives at national, regional and local level has been: Good and wonderful and I agree. What happens is that the owner has not served indigenous communities.

They have served their political communities and not their parties. Many were living in Caracas. They no longer want to be indigenous but they want to remain political. (A. Lanz, op. Cit) Alexis Romero, Pemon, says he recognizes the work of their representatives in LOPCI approval .

That’s one of their jobs, is the result of their management. The thing it’s hard enough for the deputies in the National Assembly (AN) with the antagonism between the government and the opposition at this time. They had their timing. There was a time when 3 deputies could be the difference on the approval of an act. The difference between both political forces was so small that those 3 votes were critical. At that time, those 3 were the key. Strong actions should be

51

taken, and now with an assembly composed mostly by pro-government deputies, indigenous presence is not balanced, however, the mere fact that indigenous deputies publicly expressed their decision in favor of the indigenous struggles and against the abuses perpetrated by the Government, would have been a good thing for us.” (A. Romero, op. Cit) Guillermo Guevara, former deputy of Jivi indigenous, on the scope of regional representation: At the regional parliament, there are also problems because our chosen leaders are not united. At one moment we nearly had majority in the legislative council, and even in that moment we never agreed.

(G. Arana, op. Cit) Renowned defender Emilio Esteban Mosonyi explains: In any document or any presidential broadcasts, our people applauded and became like a microphone of the official discourse, amplifiers and spokespersons of the Government, perhaps thinking that it can be a way to impulse the indigenous cause but it was a lie, as far as you let yourself be part of mainstream, you practically stop being a carrier of culture and became a mainstream person, as Ortega y Gasset says, almost ceases of been human. I think at this point the deputies are reorganizing themselves and its positions, even the most radicals and is already a little bit different.

(E. Mosonyi, op. Cit)

framework as a breakthrough; Chapter VIII of CRBV, The LOPCI, Law on Demarcation and Protection of habitat and lands of indigenous peoples, and the law of indigenous languages. However, the setbacks are expressed in autonomy, lack of strength and organization for the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities, which are practically lost.

There is a growing process of partisanship, and loss of cultural identity. In turn, 43% say they are worse, and 5% think there are the same.

Jorge Montiel said: Just because we have almost no advances. Meanwhile Juan Carlos La Rosa said: The indigenous movement is worse. The explanation is simple: The “adecos” (Acción Democrática Party), did not intervene, they attacked. They had a program to attack directly; its only indigenous intervention program was a result of the pressure from political left, which was the bilingual program of intercultural education.

For the year 1998 found that Indigenous organizations are today:

Best

The Indigenous professor José Quintero, emphatically accuses indigenous representatives as responsible of the current situation of weakness within organizations and policies contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples and communities: They are responsible for everything that happened, especially for their silence. I still have not read or ever heard a statement of any indigenous deputies, and I’m talking about the pro-government and non progovernment. I still have not heard Noeli Pocaterra, or Arcadio Montiel, speaking up about the murder of Sabino. I have not heard Noeli Pocaterra, or Arcadio Montiel making an statement about the 25 guajiros that have been murdered (...) There has not been a defense of the traditional indigenous organization by the deputies, in fact, because at one time they were all part of the ruling class, which was then divided. (J. Quintero, op. Cit) Twelfth question: Compared to 1998, ¿how does the situation of the indigenous movement?

Compared to 1998, we found that indigenous organizations are now: with advances and setbacks (52%). Unanimously the consulted highlight legal

Equal With advances and retreats Worse

José Quintero is emphatic: Worst. In fact there are no organizations of our own. All the organizations are from the government.

Indigenous organizations themselves were totally coopted, and minimized in its own action and in their own culture. There is not right now an indigenous organization that can say look this organization fighting for its own indigenous status” somehow all were permeated, so is worse. It seems like a contradiction, there is more visibility, but less real participation. (J. Quintero, op. Cit) Esteban Emilio Mosonyi: Quantitatively there are many more indigenous leaders, some very good and some that are not so good,

52

but this process have proven to be redeemable, because it seems that most of the Indigenous, even those who are a bit lazy, when the time comes, they act. When they see their environment and culture are endangered and the fight does not progress, it’s time that the vast majority think again and return to the fight. (E. Mosonyi)

CONIVE: THE STAGNATION OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION Moreover, CONIVE, the most traditional indigenous organization in the country, also experience weakness of the regional groups. Laboratorio de Paz spoke with José Gregorio Mirabal, Vice Coordinator of the organization and also with a group of indigenous who participated in their path, who described their situation. According to statements by Raul Tempo, current coordinator of health and sport of CONIVE: This organization represents over half a million people and more than 40 indigenous peoples living in 10 states of Venezuela. However, under the process of political polarization, even with the unconditional support of the organization to the government and at the same time, all the criticism by some indigenous leaders to the organization, suggest that it is suffering the same crisis of representativeness than other traditional political actors in the country. Within CONIVE identified three trends in conflict, and two of them, related most to the people than to political, ideological or indigenous rights projects. Different testimonies speak of the existence of two Conives, one of Nohelí Pocaterra and the other of Nicia Maldonado, the first entitled the Congresses of the organization, but the second, by virtue of its former General Coordinator (elected at the Fourth Congress on 2002), then as Minister of Indigenous Peoples (2007-2012) and now as coordinator of CorpoAmazonas, auto-adjudicates the representativeness of the coalition for herself.

In addition to the antagonism between the two characters, no witness could account the differences in policy and programmatic background. A third critical tendency on the process of Conive is partisanship, but

its influence is minor (Guillermo Arana, interview).

According to its statutes, every four years, CONIVE should organize a congress in which a new board is elected. The current board, was elected in the VI Congress of 2012, and was already reelected in office at the V Congress, held in 2006. A statute of internal elections defined as part of the candidate’s profile: Being committed to the indigenous cause and to the Bolivarian revolutionary process led by President Hugo Chavez. This statute was adopted in 2010. For the VI Congress only participated a single group of candidates, made by those who were already part of the board in office. On this election Guillermo Arana said: We couldn’t believe we spent a whole day sitting, and waiting for the decision that we were going to make and, at the end we did not choose anyone because all organizations, the heads the chiefs were put on a platform to make a consensus, and they did just between them because the base just did nothing.

The base, did not participated in that consensus, in fact we were unsatisfied. The truth is that this process did not bring anything good, people stayed the same.

In a study of 2010, Luis Fernando Angosto established about this organization: In its founding statutes Conive established political independence from political parties as one

53

of its fundamental principles, but since 1999 came to be closely identified with the Bolivarian movement and partisan alliances that articulate with it. This identification is often verbalized by their leaders in public events, but can also be inferred by the political maneuvering of the organization, the type of events organized or in which it participates and the smooth transfer of political staff from the organization to the government and state bodies.

Given the characteristic polarization of Venezuelan political arena since 1999 and some of the tactics followed by certain sectors of the opposition to the governments of Chavez, Conive’s identification with the Bolivarian bloc was also reflected in the “institutionalism” position of the organization, especially in the early years of this government but basically until 2007.”

Conive has a web site (http://www.conive.org/), however since 2006 it is outdated. The government portal Aporrea.org is who has the largest number of both institutional pronouncements as spokespersons of the organization, for a total of 34 spread between years 2002-2014. Most statements relate to the conduct of elections, both internal and regional and national, for a total of 13 (38.2%), 5 pronouncements of solidarity with the national executive (14.7%), 4 Institutional Coordination with the State (11.7%), 3 on celebration of ephemeris (8.8%), 2 out of attending international events (5.8%), 1 about police abuse, 1 about the case of Sabino Romero, 1 on lands demarcation, 1 about drafting laws and 1 obituary. The lawyer and specialist in indigenous law, Vladimir Aguilar have reviewed this emphasis on the election processes: If the Indigenous movement thought that been a deputy was more important than being “Kashana”, (the traditional maximum authority in an indigenous community), Chapter 8 of the Constitution was definitely not necessary. That prospect could be addressed by an electoral reform or by the exercise of the right to participate, as in other countries. Highlights the fact that the main demand of the indigenous peoples of the country -the right to land demarcation-, just has generated one statement.

Indigenous activists like Juan Carlos La Rosa have analyzed this situation: Conive is an electoral franchise, not even an indigenous organization. This will help the people to vote for Chavez. In concrete terms, there are not Conive militants, but they existed before, even people who were not indigenous.

Meanwhile, Aguilar describes a related CONIVE situation on the participation in national elections: Conive renounced even to its acronym in order to participate in elections and now their participation must be through the PSUV, there is an open resignation that express what is his own status as an autonomous organization to have to bow to a political party as a way to participate. Indigenous are no more politically involved for their indigenous status, they are politically involved for being a party member.

Rating CONIVE as representative of indigenous organizations

Excelent Satisfactory Irregular Deficient

The balance that indigenous and activists make over traditional National Organization that must ensure and fight for the rights of indigenous peoples and communities in Venezuela is very respectful of its inception and the achievements made in the 90s and after the adoption of Chapter VIII of the CRBV, however, now highlights the transformation of the organization from its principles and purposes. 58% thought its performance as an association that brings together a large number of indigenous organizations in the country is poor and 42% said it was satisfactory.

Guillermo Arana, piaroa leader: Conive gave the peoples strengths, address to the people, to support them in the constitution, for the emergence, accompany other organizations and make them understand that we only will be strong if we were organized. Through dialogue had matches in the joint work. Conive has a leading role in the sense of working with organizations, but there are all lost. There are some sectors pretending to be wise but in fact are selfish. That is what is happening today. We have examples as Nilcia Maldonado, who was representing us internationally to strengthen organizations. What did she do when she came from Ecuador? Breaking the Conive organization

54

and founded another parallel organization. It violated the mandate of indigenous peoples, which was to promote the organization, She founded an organization called Coiba just to stay in power and not to defend the identity. (G. Arana, op. Cit)

The activist and advocate of Zulia, now believes that CONIVE’s performance is “Very poor, no one talks of Conive as a space of organization of Indigenous Peoples. It is a political party.”

(Anonymous, op. Cit)

Guillermo Guevara: Nohelí Pocaterra, she went by the CONIVE, she was Deputy, one of the deputies who had the most votes at the first opportunity, and then changes and goes for the PSUV, you join the ruling party. The same situation occurs with José Luis González, so did Jose Pollo. So we are left without representation in the full assembly to agree on these issues, to move from one place to another, It can not be. Then we lost our leadership perspective (G. Guevara, op.

Cit).

The Indigenous Pemon Alexis Romero explained: Conive is in the same situation in their functions and performances. They are divided like the Indigenous Federation of Bolivar (FIB), some are with Nohelí and others are with Nilcia Maldonado, there is a division. That’s an internal fight that we often have to believe is promoted by the government who never ruled in favor of either side, always handled the two groups. The government was always interested in the votes and the followers. Nothing comes to land demarcation.

(A. Romero, op. Cit)

Jorge Montiel reaffirms this view: Conive know that if at first, they did a job on the right of indigenous peoples in LOPCI. But Conive has not supported indigenous peoples, because Conive is now a political party. For me it is not an organization but a political party. For me it is poor.

The defender Lusbi Portillo: The Conive has no major impact on Indigenous Peoples. There is an effort now to regain Conive, the Indigenous are very concerned that the experience so far has not been helpful to solve the problems of land, mining, environmental impact and safety. (L. Portillo).

Example electoral campaign by CONIVE campaña electoral realizada por CONIVE

55

CONCLUSIONS

The different interviews with indigenous, activists and specialists in this diagnosis dropped two consensuses.

One positive sign: The recognition of the enabling policy framework for the enjoyment of indigenous rights, Chapter VIII of the Constitution and the following laws, as well as political will expressed by President Hugo Chavez that such rights were included in different legal instruments.

Anthropologist Esteban Emilio Mosonyi made the best summary of the positive aspects of Venezuelan indigenous law: Overall it is a good constitution, is pro-indigenous and above all is very marked the second part, the transitional provisions if they were satisfied, at least moderately, in the first two to five years and here we would have what is meant as the maximum possible happiness in the indigenous world. Then the regulatory framework is positive, however after a number of years is becoming counterproductive because it does create more skepticism. There comes a time that the constitution it frustrating, because we see that is not being met, but certainly with the annotation that is legitimate, we recognize that there are good laws, CRBV is a weapon that will remain to improve our struggle all the time.

It would mean absolutely deny that the Venezuelan government has spent a lot of money in indigenous communities to health issues, such as organization, the same MINPI spent a lot of money. Also that money, in large part, has been scattered by the side channels either by corruption, by switching to other purposes, not to reach communities, by getting as suspended halfway or used in a non convenient way to impose things that are not indigenous. Most of that money has not been well used, why? Because there has been no follow-up, there have been no assessments, intervention over the indigenous leadership, especially the base, has been fairly minimal. Another positive aspect is the fact that the State has encouraged the cessation of ethnic shame, the shame of being indigenous, this is important, because indigenous are the founding peoples of Venezuela and are the original part of our history.

A second consensus has been the lack of realization of the rights contained in the laws as well as the negative

impact on traditional Aboriginal organizations both communal councils and communes, in the framework of the promotion of the state project called “Socialism XXI Century “, which has generated different constraints and obstacles to the exercise of the right to free association by the communities and associations of indigenous peoples.

This diagnosis of the right of indigenous association in Venezuela found that the Venezuelan State has failed to fulfill all the good practices to ensure the exercise of the right to free association. Furthermore, it has been found that indigenous organizations were weakened and without an agenda of its own claims, with weak linkages between regions and historic structures co-opted by the Venezuelan government. As Alejandro Lanz warns: this is a paradox “organizations have deteriorated, but have more political representation in elect positions”, despite the fact that indigenous leaders are in visible positions of state and regional power, including the activity of its own ministry, the situation of the communities has not changed significantly. Gregorio Mirabal, General Coordinator of ORPIA describe the general situation of the indigenous movement as a “crisis inside an emergency room”: After the approval of all indigenous laws, we believed that only being supportive with the government would materialize our rights.

And we demobilize.

On the regeneration of indigenous organizations towards the full realization of the right to free association, Vladimir Aguilar made an interesting reflection: Who is responsible for the rescue of what we had?

The organizations, How are they going to do it? I do not doubt. Here the process is exactly the same as when the CONIVE created: through regional organizations. It’s a little resurgence we’re seeing right now in organizations In Amazonas, for example, with ORPIA and COIAM; discussions are taking place in the Indigenous Federation of Bolivar state, which are very bitter debates, where there is a huge clash between what the grassroots leaders argue and what political leaders who are participating in the government agencies and the State agencies express.

Not in the manner expressed in Bolivar or as expressed in Amazonas, but the resurgence of an indigenous movement in the case of Zulia, where we are also seeing that there are huge confrontations especially in how to address the issue of land and the issue of demarcation. I

56

would think the issue of demarcation, the whole process of demarcation, questioning the titles that have been delivered, this process entails a rethinking of what is indigenous institutional framework in the country, among which is its maximum organization -CONIVE-, now paralyzed and mortgaged, but this change will come from the grassroots.

(16) Alejandro Lanz, Coordinator, Centre for Ecological Research of Venezuela

(17) Luis Shatiwe member of Yanomami organization Horonami

57

(18) Student Association of Indigenous Councils of the University of Zulia (ACEINLUZ)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Laws, conventions and declarations

• • • • •

Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Pacto de San José) San José, Costa Rica 1969.

Convenio OIT Nro. 169. Sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales En Países Independientes. 1989.

Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Gaceta Oficial No 36.860 del 30 de Diciembre de 1999 Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre. Bogotá, Colombia, 1948.

Declaración sobre los Derechos de las Personas Pertenecientes a Minorías Nacionales o Étnicas, Religiosas y Lingüísticas, 1990.

• Declaración sobre los Derechos de las Personas Pertenecientes a Minorías Nacionales o Étnicas, Religiosas y Lingüísticas. Resolución 47/135 del 18 de diciembre de 1992.

• Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (A/RES/61/295) 13 de septiembre de 2007 • Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 10 de diciembre de 1948 • Ley orgánica de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas LOPCI. Gaceta. Oficial Nº 38.344 del 27 de diciembre de 2005 • Ley Orgánica de Consejos Comunales. Gaceta Oficial No 39.335, 28 de diciembre de 2009.

• Ley Orgánica de Comunas. Gaceta Oficial No 6.011, el 21 de diciembre de 2010 • Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos. resolución 2200 A (XXI), 16 de diciembre de 1966 Texts Angosto, L.F. (2011). La competencia por la representación indígena en las elecciones venezolanas (2004-2010).

Cuestiones Políticas Vol. 27. Nº 46, enero-junio 2011: 13 - 54 (2010). Pueblos indígenas, multiculturalismo y la nueva geometría del poder en Venezuela. Cuadernos del Cendes año 27. N° 73: 97-132.

(2008). Pueblos indígenas, guaicaipurismo y socialismo del siglo XXI en Venezuela. Antropológica de la Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales 2008, 110: 9-33 Alto Comisionado de Derechos Humanos de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (2012). Informe del Relator Especial sobre los derechos a la libertad de reunión pacífica y de asociación, Maina Kiai. Obtenido el 13 de enero 2014 de http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/138/52/PDF/G1213852.pdf?OpenElement Bello, LJ (2011). El Estado ante la Sociedad Multiétnica y Pluricultural. Políticas Públicas y Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en Venezuela (1999-2010). Copenhague: Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA).

(2005). Derechos de los pueblos indígenas en el nuevo ordenamiento jurídico venezolano. Copenhague: Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA).

Castells, M (1999). La era de la información. Economía, sociedad y cultura. Fin de Milenio, volumen III. México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Centro Internacional de Derecho no Lucrativo (2012). La defensa de la sociedad civil. Obtenida el 11 de enero 2014, de http://www.icnl.org/research/resources/dcs/DCS_Report_Second_Edition_Spanish.pdf Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (2012) Resolución 21 16 del Consejo de Derechos Humanos sobre los Derechos de Libertad de Reunión y de Asociación. Obtenida el 15 de enero 2014 de http://www. civilisac.org/civilis/wp-content/uploads/Resoluci%C3%B3n-21-16-del-Consejo-de-Derechos-Humanos-sobre-losDerechos-de-Libertad-de-Reuni%C3%B3n-y-de-Asociaci%C3%B3n.pdf

58

Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (1995). Derechos indígenas y conservación de la naturaleza.

Copenhague: Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA).

Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (2003). Campaña Educativa sobre Derechos Humanos y Derechos Indígenas. Obtenido el 13 de enero 2014, de http://www.iidh.ed.cr/comunidades/diversidades/campana%20indigena/ indigenas%20modulos%20tematicos.pdf Quispe, MT (2005). Gobiernos locales y pueblos indígenas. Lima: Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA).

PROVEA (2013). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Enero-diciembre 2012.

Caracas: Provea.

(2012). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2011 – Septiembre 2012.

Caracas: Provea.

(2011). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2010 – Septiembre 2011.

Caracas: Provea.

(2010). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2009 – Septiembre 2010.

Caracas: Provea.

(2009). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2008 – Septiembre 2009.

Caracas: Provea.

(2008). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2007 – Septiembre 2008.

Caracas: Provea.

(2007). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2006 – Septiembre 2007.

Caracas: Provea.

(2006). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2005 – Septiembre 2006.

Caracas: Provea.

(2005). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2004 – Septiembre 2005.

Caracas: Provea.

(2003). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2002 – Septiembre 2003.

Caracas: Provea.

(2002). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2001 – Septiembre 2002.

Caracas: Provea.

(2001). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 2000 – Septiembre 2001.

Caracas: Provea.

(2000). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1999 – Septiembre 2000.

Caracas: Provea.

(1999). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1998 – Septiembre 1999.

Caracas: Provea.

(1998). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1997 – Septiembre 1998.

Caracas: Provea.

(1997). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1996 – Septiembre 1998.

Caracas: Provea.

(1996). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1995 – Septiembre 1996.

Caracas: Provea.

(1995). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1994 – Septiembre 1995.

Caracas: Provea.

(1994). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1993 – Septiembre 1994.

Caracas: Provea.

(1993). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1992 – Septiembre 1993.

Caracas: Provea.

(1992). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1991 – Septiembre 1992.

Caracas: Provea.

(1991). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1990 – Septiembre 1991.

Caracas: Provea.

(1990). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1989 – Septiembre 1990.

Caracas: Provea.

(1989). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Octubre 1988 – Septiembre 1989.

Caracas: Provea.

(1988). Informe Anual sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Caracas: Provea.

Grupo Internacional de Trabajo de Asuntos Indígenas (2013). El Mundo Indígena 2013. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=614 (2012). El Mundo Indígena 2012. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=574 (2011). El Mundo Indígena 2011. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=455 (2010). El Mundo Indígena 2010. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=281 (2009). El Mundo Indígena 2009. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=290 (2008). El Mundo Indígena 2008. Obtenida el 15 de enero de 2014, de http://www.iwgia.org/publicaciones/buscar-publicaciones?publication_id=300 International Center for Not-for-profit Law (2012). Principios internacionales de protección de la sociedad civil. Obtenida el 07 de enero de 2014 de http://www.defendingcivilsociety.org/sp/index.php/principles Jimenez, T. (2009). Los pueblos indígenas de Venezuela y la conquista de sus derechos. Memorias de la Resistencia Indígena, 92-94.

Montiel, N. (1983). Movimiento Indígena en Venezuela. Maracaibo: Editorial Grao.

Muñoz, J.M. (2009). Conversación con Nicia Maldonado, Ministra del Poder Popular para los Pueblos Indígenas.

Memorias de la Resistencia Indígena, 40-45 Murrieta, J.R. (2006). Democracia y participación política de los pueblos indígenas en América Latina. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. Obtenida el 13 de enero 2014, de http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129780s.pdf NASH, C. E. Los derechos humanos de los indígenas en la jurisprudencia de la corte interamericana de derechos humanos.

Seminario Internacional “Derechos Humanos y pueblos indígenas: Tendencias internacionales y realidad local, 2004. Obtenida el 15 de enero 2014, de http://www.cdh.uchile.cl/media/publicaciones/pdf/36.pdf Oficina de Enlace con las Comunidades Indígenas del Ministerio de Cultura (2009). “El reconocimiento del otro pueblo nos lleva también a reconocer la existencia del resto de la humanidad”. Conversación con Iris Aray. Representante Kariña en el Parlamento Indígena de América. Memorias de la Resistencia Indígena, 50-55.

Organización de Estados Americanos (2011). Promoción de los derechos de libertad de reunión y de asociación en las Américas. Obtenido el 16 de enero 2014, de http://www.civilisac.org/civilis/wp-content/uploads/Resoluci%C3%B3n-26-80-de-la-OEA-sobre-Promoci%C3%B3n-de-los-Derechos-de-Libertad-de-Reuni%C3%B3n-y-de-Asociaci%C3%B3n-en-Las-Am%C3%A9ricas.pdf Organización de Naciones Unidas (2009). Guía de Congruencia con Normas Internacionales del Sistema Universal y del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos. Obtenida el 12 de enero 2014, de http://acnudh.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Guia-Congruencia1.pdf Organización Internacional del Trabajo (2009). Los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales en la práctica. Una guía sobre el Convenio núm. 169 de la OIT. Obtenida el 12 de enero 2014, de http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_113014.pdf REYNA F. y D´ELIA J. (2013). El Derecho a la Libertad de Asociación.

Secretariado General de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (2009) Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, S. James Anaya. Obtenida el 18 de enero de 2014, de http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/502/84/PDF/N0950284.pdf?OpenElement Trujillo, R. (2009). Noeli Pocaterra. Breve testimonio de una vida en resistencia. Memorias de la Resistencia Indígena, 46-49.

Interviews ANONYMOUS: Activist Zulia. Interview conducted in February 2014, in Machiques, Zulia state. Interviewers: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys Student Association of Indigenous Councils of the University of Zulia (ACEINLUZ). Interview conducted in February 2014 at the University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Zulia state City. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys AGUILAR, Vladimir. Interview conducted in December 2013 at the University of the Andes, Merida, Merida state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys ARANA, Guillermo. Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys CONDE, Melia, Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state. Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui and Lexys Rendón.

GUEVARA, Guillermo. Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state.

Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui MIRABAL Gregory. Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys MONTIEL, Jorge, Interview conducted in February 2014 in Mara, Zulia state, Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys MOSONYI, Emilio Esteban, Interview conducted in February 2014, in the city of Caracas, Dtto. Capital.

Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys LA ROSA, Juan Carlos. Interview conducted in February 2014, in Caracas, Dtto. Capital. Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui and Lexys Rendón.

LANZ, Alejandro. Interview conducted in December 2013 in the city of Puerto Ordaz, Bolivar state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys LUZARDO, Alexander. Interview conducted in February 2014, in the city of Caracas, Dtto. Capital. Interviewer: Lexys Rendón QUINTERO, Joseph. Interview conducted in February 2014 at the University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Zulia state.

Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui and Lexys Rendón.

PORTILLO, Lusbi. Interview conducted in February 2014 at the University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Zulia state.

Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui and Lexys Rendón.

RIVERO, Juan Carlos. Interview conducted in December 2013 at the University of the Andes, Merida State.

Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys

ROMERO, Alexis. Interview conducted in December 2013 in Santa Elena de Uairen Bolivar State. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys SANTOS, Otilio, OIPUS. Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state.

Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys SHATIWE, Luis. Interview conducted in November 2013, in Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys VASQUEZ, Natalie. Interview made in ​​ December 2013 in Puerto Ordaz, Bolivar state. Interviewer: Rafael Rendon Uzcátegui and Lexys VITTI, Minerva. Interview conducted in February 2014, in Caracas, Dtto. Capital. Interviewer: Rafael Uzcátegui.

Laboratorio de Paz It is a non-profit education, research, education and promotion of social organization, human rights and grassroots activism for a culture of peace, demilitarization and non-violent conflict resolution. www.laboratoriosdepaz.org @labdpaz