Although only part of his family is native, Leonardo Crippa, born and raised in Argentina, got to see the situation of indigenous peoples first hand. As a law student in Argentina, his main focus was international law because that was the only way he felt he could seek law reform within the existing legal framework. He began participating in moot court competitions, essay contests and won almost all of those he entered. In 2001, he won an important moot court competition held in the Inter-American Court on Human Rights building in Costa Rica. It foreshadowed the direction his legal career would take.

After receiving his law degree in 2001, he began practicing at a firm in Jujuy, Argentina (where he was born.) There, he provided legal advice to the first indigenous lawmaker in that province, represented an indigenous organization and, became President of the Human Rights Commission of the Jujuy Bar Association. He was then invited to be Staff Attorney for the Center for Justice and International Law, to litigate cases on human rights violations against Guatemala and Panama before the Inter-American Human Rights System (Commission and Court), part of the Organization of American States (OAS). He began litigating cases before the Commission in Washington, DC, and also before the Court, in San Jose, Costa Rica. Within a year and a half he was invited to join the Indian Law Resource Center, in Washington, DC, to handle cases on human rights violations on behalf of indigenous nations across the Americas. He is currently the only attorney in the DC office and the only one who works on cases involving Mexico, Central and South America, because of his fluency in Spanish. He leads the Center’s work at the OAS on the draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and represents and provides legal assistance to indigenous representatives from across the Americas to negotiate with OAS member states.

He also works on a project called Multilateral Development Banks. This project is trying to develop a new international framework in which human rights responsibility can be directly attributed to the World Bank, the International Finance Corp. and the Inter-American Development Bank, because of human rights violations taking place in developing countries as a consequence of projects they have financed. The broad array of peoples, countries and issues Crippa addresses is daunting. Among these is a recent massacre of Awá people in Colombia.

In February, 2009, 17 Awá Indians were killed in the Southwest part of Colombia. Can you tell us why they were targeted?
In Colombia, there is an ongoing, internal armed conflict. Under these circumstances, you have different armed actors like the guerrillas, the paramilitaries and the military forces. In the middle of this armed conflict, you have indigenous peoples living in the most isolated areas of Colombia, as well as the drug dealers. Indigenous peoples in Colombia have always been neutral to this conflict. They are not part of this conflict. It is not part of their political aspiration in the country. In spite of this they have been targeted.

There are many reasons for this. One is that since they are in isolated areas where the paramilitaries, guerrillas and military forces move in order to earn some space and also to do their work in connection to the other armed actors. The military forces also use the indigenous territory as a place in which they can rest during the conflict because it is peaceful in the jungle. The problem is, if you have the military forces getting into the indigenous territories, the other armed actors will interpret that action in a way that the indigenous people in question are collaborating with the military forces. Because of that, they will kill the families that have been involved. That is what happened with the Awá people in this case in February. Where the Awá people are is an area of transit. Different armed actors transit from one side to another. The paramilitaries thought that the Awá were collaborating with the military forces. That is what they said. As a result, they killed some members of the Awá people.

Are there specific individuals they feel have collaborated?
No. There is no particular focus on a specific member of the Awá people. They just do it in a way to prevent this kind of incursion from taking place again in the future. And also to make the Awá people themselves frightened to do the same thing. It is an ongoing issue.

Your organization, the Indian Law Resource Center, says that approximately 1250 indigenous people have been killed in the past five years. Can you put the recent incidents in a broader context?
Well, this is how I see it. In Colombia especially, there is a lot of interest in the indigenous land. Indigenous peoples have been moved to isolated areas and in those areas is where you can find natural resources. The remaining natural resources are right now on indigenous land. That’s why they [government and transnationals] are there. In every green part that you can see in Colombia, you will find indigenous peoples. That’s not because they have chosen to be there. They have been moved, as a way to defend themselves. They have started living there also. Now, the interest in developing the natural resources in extractive industry, working on indigenous land, is huge in Colombia. You have to be aware that Colombia is a developing country, which means that it seeks support from any international financial institution. Any international investment is like a dream for them and they will do everything they can do to make it happen. That is coming from the government and the transnational corporations who are seeking to explore or exploit natural resources that are located on indigenous land. In Colombia, you have another situation, which is the armed conflict. You have the drug dealers and the armed actors operating in that same area because they are isolated areas and that’s where they are located too. In the mean time, the government is not adopting effective measures to prevent the relocation of indigenous communities or the militarization of indigenous territories. When I say militarization, I mean the military forces start working as an armed actor on indigenous land. And that not only puts at risk the community members, but also helps to create an environment in which, right now, many indigenous women have been raped by the military forces. That contact between the military forces and the indigenous members is affecting their identity, their way of life, and many other issues.

Who is responsible?
The FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were the ones that killed the Awá members in February, but the militarization is something that comes from the military forces [government]. The overwhelming threat to them comes from the government. The landmines are another way in which the militarization takes place on indigenous land. Because they are in an armed conflict, the government puts the landmines on indigenous land. Now indigenous peoples, they need to collect herbs. They need to hunt. They need to fish. And when they try to go about their normal way of seeking food, they have to deal with these landmines and sometimes they get killed. Since they are in very isolated areas, sometimes the government doesn’t go back and pick them up. So the landmines are still there.

How have indigenous peoples responded?
All these situations forced indigenous leaders in Colombia to start making noises, to start making people understand and learn what their struggle is in Colombia—at the national level and international level. At the national level, they started to carry out these mingas humanitarias. Minga is basically a specific way of making a protest. They want to send out a message that they are neutral in this armed conflict, that their lands and environment are at risk, and so they seek the protection of the government. They are starting to do that in a public way, especially when they don’t see a response from the government.

For instance, the minga humanitaria that happened in March, while some leaders were here in Washington, happened because those leaders wanted to recover the bodies of the people who had been killed. The government didn’t’ want to go back to that territory and look for those bodies. In that minga humanitaria, representatives from all indigenous peoples and nations in Colombia were involved. You know, they are very unified. They have very strong ways to collaborate with each other. Whatever happens to an indigenous nation, you will see that all the other indigenous nations are going to support them even though it is a risky activity. Going into the jungle for two days, avoiding landmines and searching for bodies— the result was very good. They found eight bodies. There was also some really bad news. Two of them were pregnant women. There is no reason to kill pregnant women.

How has the Colombian government responded?
The indigenous leaders also do these kinds of mingas in Bogotá, the nation’s capitol. Sometimes, when they do that, they are criminally prosecuted because they are creating an obstacle to public transportation or something like that. That is a way that the government is starting to persecute the leaders of these movements. You know that when you frighten the leaders of a movement, you are basically frightening the entire movement. This is an ongoing issue in Colombia and that is why we were talking about criminalization at the thematic hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in March. Groups from many Latin American countries came. We showed the Commission how the lack of effective measures to protect indigenous peoples’ property rights to land and natural resources, is generating an environment in which the state is starting to create crimes to persecute leaders who are claiming land rights in a public way. In Colombia, because of the armed conflict, they can immediately apply certain laws even though they were created for a specific purpose and for the armed actors. They are now being applied to indigenous leaders in the context of the mingas humanitarias. We sent out that message, so that was good. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People, Victor Abramovich, welcomed the recommendations. We basically asked the Commission to write a chapter on the criminalization of indigenous protest in a special report that the Commission is working on right now. We also requested that the Special Rapporteur visit Colombia in order to get to know the situation indigenous peoples are facing in Colombia, during the armed conflict. It is a very sad situation and they need help. I think they got the message.

Almost 3 million people in Colombia are internally displaced and about a third of all indigenous people there are now at risk of extinction. Why is this happening?
Because of the armed conflict, many community members and whole communities have been forced to move to other land. Sometimes they move to cities because they need security. Sometimes they move to other rural areas. You have to be aware that for indigenous peoples, the land is something special. They have a strong cultural and spiritual connection to the land. If you move them from their traditional land it will take them time to get used to that part of the world. It changes their customs, their identity, their values, everything. Many indigenous people are suffering. They are starving, basically. They can’t fish. They can’t hunt. They can’t collect herbs because of the landmines. The armed conflict makes all of the negative effects worse. So they are dying. That is why you have, around 18 indigenous nations at risk of extinction. They are really in a very critical situation.

What are you seeking now?
At the OAS, for almost 10-15 years, a Regional Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been under negotiations. This declaration is going to reflect the particularities that indigenous peoples have in this region. In that sense, we are concerned about the positions of some member states like the US, Canada and Colombia. We are looking forward to develop more clear standards about the protection and the rights of indigenous peoples, especially about the right to self-determination, self-government, property rights to land and natural resources. We also want a specific provision covering the situation of violence against native women and the situation of indigenous peoples and internal armed conflict. Both provisions are contained in the draft American Declaration and are not covered in the UN Declaration. There is still a need for the American Declaration so both the Commission and the Court can use this international standard when they apply human rights treaties to protect indigenous rights. But in terms of the OAS, we are also concerned because there is a lack of political will from OAS member states to move forward with this process. Since the adoption of the UN Declaration one and a half years ago, this process hasn’t been moving forward, hasn’t been making substantive progress even though we already have a Universal Declaration.

Can you tell us briefly about the US relationship with Colombia and how it’s changing with a new Administration?
In Latin America, one of the main allies of the US is Colombia. At the international level, Colombia, the US and Canada, didn’t vote in favor of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the OAS level, they are not participating actively in the negotiations. But this was taking place since the beginning of the Bush Administration. Colombia, since it is an ally of the US, is doing the same. Canada too.

Now the new [Obama] Administration is really new. They’ve been open to listening to what indigenous people want them to do. There are some changes, in that sense. For instance, in the US, you have the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is an agency under the Department of the Interior. Now, under this new administration, you have one person at the White House who is native, who is a professional attorney and is participating in the decision-making process of a lot of policies. That is something new. It is a big change. Now in terms of the international policy of the US, they are considering some changes, reversing some of the Bush policies. One of them is being more supportive of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples process. Also, they are evaluating how they can change the Bush policy in terms of the UN Declaration.

Past Close Up Articles

Jim Harrington, Director, Texas Civil Rights Project
Prof. Brian Levin, Director, Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism
Juliana Rotich, Program Director, Ushahidi.com
Christina Iturralde, LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Anene Ejikeme Assistant Professor, Trinity University
Alexander Verkhovsky, Director, SOVA Center for Information and Analysis (Moscow)
Innokenty Grekov, Human Rights First
Paul St. Clair, Executive Director, Roma Community Centre
Rev. Allan Ramirez, Latino Advocate
Dr. Agapito López, M.D.
Bill Habern, defense attorney
Anya Cordell, activist
Rais Bhuiyan, survivor
Allison Moore, Volunteer