Date: 15 June 2005
Court: Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Citation: IACtHR, Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Judgment, 15 June 2005, Series C, No.145 (2005)
Short summary
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)held that the State of Suriname violated the Moiwana’s right to property by its failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events which caused the internal displacement of the Moiwana community. The Court stressed the profound ties of the Moiwana community to their traditional lands which were integral to their identity and existence.
Summary by: Wong Ho Yin
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
The IACtHR applies the American Convention on Human Rights and States that have recognised the jurisdiction of the IACtHR are bound by its judgments. As this case originated in an application against Suriname, a then State who recognised the jurisdiction of the IACtHR, the judgment is binding and Suriname must implement its recommendations.
Key facts
The N’djuka maroon village of Moiwana faced attacks and massacre by members of the armed forces of Suriname in 1986. Inhabitants of Moiwana were forcibly displaced within Suriname and they were unable to maintain their means of livelihood and subsistence. There was not sufficient investigation of the massacre, not to mention prosecution or punishment of the perpetrators.
Previous instances
In 1997, the human rights organization Moiwana ‘86 filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with respect of Articles 25 (right to judicial protection), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention against the State of Suriname. The Inter-American Commission found the petition admissible and made recommendations to Suriname to take actions to address the massacre. After unsuccessful attempts to facilitate compliance with its recommendations, the Inter-American Commission referred the case to the Inter-American Court.
Summary of holding
The Court decided that Suriname’s failure to investigate the events has directly prevented the Moiwana community from resuming their lives in the traditional lands which were their ancestral territory.
The Court held that even when the Moiwana community did not own formal legal title to the territory (as the land belonged to the State), they obtained “official recognition of their communal ownership” of the land by mere occupation of the land pursuant to customary practices. The Court took into account the “unique and enduring ties that bind indigenous communities to their ancestral territory”.(para. 131). The Court opined that:
“The relationship of an indigenous community with its land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of its culture, spiritual life, integrity, and economic survival. For such peoples, their communal nexus with the ancestral territory is not merely a matter of possession and production, but rather consists in material and spiritual elements that must be fully integrated and enjoyed by the community, so that it may preserve its cultural legacy and pass it on to future generations.” (emphasis added) (see para. 131)
Continued on the next page…