Josefina Case |
|||||||||||
What is affected |
|
||||||||||
Type of violation |
Forced eviction Demolition/destruction Dispossession/confiscation Environmental/climate event |
||||||||||
Date | 14 November 2020 | ||||||||||
Region | LAC [ Latin America/Caribbean ] | ||||||||||
Country | Colombia | ||||||||||
Location | Providencia and Santa Catalina Islands | ||||||||||
Affected persons |
|
||||||||||
Proposed solution | |||||||||||
Details |
|
||||||||||
Development | |||||||||||
Forced eviction | |||||||||||
Costs | |||||||||||
Demolition/destruction | |||||||||||
Housing losses | |||||||||||
- Number of homes | 1999 | ||||||||||
- Total value € | |||||||||||
Duty holder(s) /responsible party(ies) |
|
||||||||||
Brief narrative |
Josefina Huffington Archbold v. Office of the President and others (Josefina Case) Colombia Constitutional Court Violation of Human Rights under the Colombian Constitution
On 14 November 2020, Hurricane Iota destroyed 98% of the buildings on the islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina in Colombia. On 18 November 2020, the President of the Republic declared the existence of a disaster situation in the archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina.
This decree ordered the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (‘UNGRD’), to prepare a Specific Action Plan to (i) address the post-disaster humanitarian situation and (ii) plan and execute the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affected areas.
The plaintiff’s principal allegation was that the entities in charge of managing the disaster situation caused by Hurricane Iota had violated her fundamental rights and those of the Raizal people. Most relevantly to climate displacement, the applicants alleged that the tents delivered by the UNRGD and the Ministry of Housing were of poor quality and the number of tents did not match the number of families affected.
The rights in question were the right to decent housing, drinking water, basic sanitation, a healthy environment, health, access to public information, prior consultation, and cultural identity.
The Court found a violation of all the rights in question and that the violation was the result of a lack of compliance by the Colombian government with its domestic and international obligations.
The Court issued specific orders to ensure the government’s response would be adequate and highlighted that the comprehensive action plan to restore the islands had to consider Colombia’s obligations towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the Court’s reasoning, climate change is the greatest threat to the enjoyment of human rights, which extends the government’s responsibilities to mitigation and adaptation measures with a special emphasis on communities in vulnerable situations due to socioeconomic and geographic factors.
El huracán Iota afectó a 4.645 personas y destruyó 1.999 viviendas, de las cuales 1.134 fueron destruidas totalmente y 865 fueron destruidas parcialmente (p. 9). tuvo que en febrero de 2021 el Gobierno logró el restablecimiento de la infraestructura de acueducto a las condiciones anteriores al huracán, la cual solo tenía una cobertura del 20% de la población. El suministro de 65 litros diarios de agua potable y agua tratada para el 80% restante de la población fue garantizado por medio de carrotanáques y agua embotellada (p. 41) L a población raizal se concentra en el Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina, en donde habita el 76,55% de la población (23.396 personas) (https://www.mincultura.gov.co/areas/poblaciones/comunidades-negras-afrocolombianas-raizales-y-palenqueras/Documents/Caracterizaci%C3%B3n%20comunidad%20Raizal.pdf).
Josefina Case, https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2022/20220926_T-333-of-2022_decision.pdf; http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/josefina-huffington-archbold-v-office-of-thepresident-and-others/. | ||||||||||
Costs | € 0 | ||||||||||