chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
February 08, 2024

Update: Trial Observation Report on the FENAMAD Case

Image of the Madre de Dios River that is shared between Peru and Bolivia.

Image of the Madre de Dios River that is shared between Peru and Bolivia.

Executive Summary [English]

On July 6, 2020, the Native Federation of the Madre de Dios River and Tributaries (FENAMAD) published a public statement denouncing the entry of logging company personnel into the territory of the Mashco Piro, an Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation. As a result of this legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, the logging company initiated legal proceedings to force FENAMAD and its president to publish a letter written by the company that would implicate themselves in criminal activities.

During the proceedings, FENAMAD presented several pieces of evidence to prove the allegations made in their public statement, the risks faced by the Mashco Piro Indigenous people, FENAMAD’s human rights advocacy work, and various statements by national and international sources on the vulnerability of the Mashco Piro people. However, their position and evidence were ignored and dismissed in different judicial proceedings, often with weak argumentation. This case shows due process violations, particularly in the lack of proper justification underlying judicial decisions and lack of judicial impartiality, manifested in hostility toward FENAMAD on the part of judges. The judges also failed to recognize FENAMAD’s human rights work or their right to freedom of expression, which was violated by the criminalization against them. 

FENAMAD’s situation cannot be analyzed in isolation but must be regarded as part of a system where the vulnerabilities of Indigenous peoples are exploited through abusive judicial processes that allow for the harassment and silencing of human rights defenders. The case against FENAMAD has numerous signs of being an abuse of legal process by the logging company with the aim of silencing its critics.

Read the full report in English

Resumen Ejecutivo [Espanol]

El 6 de julio de 2020, la Federación Nativa del Río Madre de Dios y Afluentes (FENAMAD) publicó un pronunciamiento público en el que denunciaba el ingreso de personal de una empresa maderera en el territorio del pueblo indígena en aislamiento voluntario Mashco Piro. 

A partir de este ejercicio legítimo de libertad de expresión, la empresa maderera inició un proceso judicial de amparo para obligar a FENAMAD y a su presidente a rectificarse mediante la publicación de una nota escrita por la empresa que les obliga a auto incriminarse en actividades delictivas.

Durante el proceso judicial, FENAMAD ofreció diversas pruebas sobre la veracidad de sus alegaciones, los riesgos que corría el pueblo indígena Mashco Piro, la labor de defensa de derechos humanos que realiza FENAMAD y los diversos pronunciamientos nacionales e internacionales sobre la situación de vulnerabilidad del pueblo Mashco Piro. No obstante, en diversas instancias su posición fue desechada con argumentaciones endebles. El caso muestra violaciones al debido proceso particularmente en temas de la falta de debida motivación de las decisiones judiciales y la hostilidad de los jueces en contra de la FENAMAD como muestra de la falta de imparcialidad judicial. Los jueces también han fallado en reconocer el rol de FENAMAD en la defensade los derechos humanos y su derecho a la libertad de expresión lo cual fue violado por la criminalización en su contra.

Este proceso no puede ser entendido de manera aislada, sino que tiene que leerse como parte de un sistema donde las vulnerabilidades de los pueblos indígenas son explotadas a través de procesos judiciales abusivos que permiten que hostigar y acallar a los defensores de derechos humanos. El caso contra FENAMAD tiene muchas señales de ser un abuso de proceso por parte de la empresa maderera con la finalidad de silenciar sus críticas. 

Leer las Conclusiones en Espanol

This report was prepared by staff of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights. The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the authors. They have not been reviewed or approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the position of the Association or any of its entities. Further, nothing in this report should be considered as legal advice in a specific case. (ABA Policy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 5, Part C)