The brief argues that individuals cannot be convicted of a crime when they have done nothing more than participate in or organize a protest of threatened environmental harm. To allow otherwise would not only violate criminal law norms, but would also violate the defendants' human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, to freedom of association, and to participation.

The brief further argues that this case cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be considered as part of the much larger problem of the global persecution of activists who speak on behalf of the environment and on behalf of people affected by harm to their environment. The prosecution must be seen for what it is: an effort by a government to target environmental leaders in an attempt to silence not only these particular individuals, but those on whose behalf they speak.

Terrorism charges for holding a vote?

The second case in Peru involves criminal charges- including terrorism- brought by a shadowy local group against three dozen mayors, lawyers, and others who led the opposition and organized a local vote on the proposed Rio Blanco mining project, located near Tambogrande. The breathtakingly broad and vague complaint asserts that the entire range of legitimate opposition activities, combined with some highly contested claims of occasional acts of property damage and violence over several years of intense debate on the project, constitutes terrorism. The "evidence" filed with the prosecutor consists of hundreds of newspaper articles on the mining controversy.

What is even more striking about the charges is that as with the Tambogrande criminal charges, there is not a single allegation that any of the leaders participated in, directed, or knew about any criminal acts. The apparent goal is to punish the leaders for exercising their rights of expression and protest, and thereby deter opposition to the project.

Since the charges were filed, the individuals who brought them have failed on four occasions to give testimony to the prosecutor. EDLC and a team of lawyers are helping defend against the charges, arguing that it is an abuse of national terrorism laws- or any other criminal laws- to invoke them to stifle debate on issues of great public concern.

« Previous Page 1 2

When environmental defenders advocate on behalf of powerless and disenfranchised people against an environmentally destructive project, all to often the defenders will have their own human rights violated.

- Amicus curiae brief to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted by environmental organizations in the Americas