32BEYOND LAW Nº 27

Legal Pluralism, Indigenous Lawand the Special Jurisdictionin the Andean Countries

Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo*

The recognition of indigenous peoples and of their right to control their institu-tions, habitat and territories, to self-government, legal systems, authorities, iden-tity, languages and culture, as well as their right to par ticipate in the regional andnational plans that may affect them, has supposed a long, as of yet inconclusive,struggle in Latin America. The 16 th century ideology of the natural infer iority of theindigenous people, the republican heritage of the notion of the nation-state andthe state-law identity of the 19th century have impeded the full recognition of thedignity of different peoples and cultures and of the diverse indigenous legal sys-tems. This situation has been contested by the different indigenous and peasantmovements and also, over the past decade, by important normative changes. Thisarticle exposes the tendencies of the constitutional reforms in the Andean coun-tries to signal to the similar legal framework that may lead to a pluralist horizonthat allows the construction of the bases of a multi-cultural state.

INTRODUCTION

The recognition of Indigenous People, and their rights to control their own institutions, habitat andterritories, to self-governance, legal systems, authorities, identity, languages and culture—as wellas their right to participation in the regional and national plans that might affect them—has entaileda long and as of yet inconclusive struggle in Latin America. The colonial reality put the nativepeoples in a condition of political subordination, economic exploitation and cultural devaluation.The ideology of the natural inferiority of the Indians, elaborated in the 16th century to legitimize theimposition, still remains strong beneath the surface of many political parties on the continent. Onthe other hand, the republican heritage of the idea of the nation-state and the identification of statelaw since the 19th century have hindered the full recognition of the equal dignity of different peoplesand cultures, as well as of the diverse indigenous legal systems, which have had to survive underconditions of illegality and subordination. This situation has been contested by different indig-enous as well as by peasant movements during the past decade, as a result of important normativeshifts, which I wish to address here.

In the final decade of the 20th century there was a tendency that resembled the constitutionalreforms initiated by the countries that make up the Andean Community of Nations:1 Colombia,Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. These countries had ratified Agreement 169 of the 1989 Inter-national Working Group on Indigenous People and Tribes in Independent Countries (OrganizaciónInternacional del Trabajo sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes de 1989), which gave

* Ph.D. Candidate , University of Barcelona. Editor, Por tal of Law and Society (http://www.alertanet.org).

1 Cartagena Accord, signed on March 10, 1996. See www.comunidadandina.org

33BEYOND LAW Nº 27

them a similar legal framework. Among the normative reforms, I would like to highlight the recog-nition of: a) the pluri-cultural nature of the state/nation/republic, b) the rights of indigenous peopleand peasant communities, c) indigenous law and special jurisdiction. Although these reforms arenot exempt from contradictions and limitations, it is fitting to interpret them from a pluralist perspec-tive that allows for the construction of the bases of a pluri-cultural state.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

The last decade of the 20th century, what can be called a “pluralist horizon” emerged as a new modelfor the multi-cultural generation.2 It occurred in the context of the international questioning of 500years of “Discovery/Invasion,” the adoption of Agreement 169 by the International Working Group,movements for the restoration of the rights of indigenous people, and constitutional reforms inmore than 15 Latin American countries.3 The core of these changes is that they question three basiclegacies of prior periods. First, they consider the recognition of indigenous people as political sub-jects and not merely as the object of a politics dictated by others; that is, as subjects with rights tocontrol their own institutions and self-define their own destinies. This is important for dismantlingthe ideology of inferiority and the supposed need for the tutela established in the colonial period tolegitimize the political subordination and economic exploitation of native peoples. Second, theyquestion two central legacies of republican legality: the binomials nation-state and state-law. Theybreak down the idea that the state represents a homogeneous nation (with a single cultural, linguis-tic and religious identity), and come to recognize cultural, linguistic and legal diversity. In question-ing the state’s monopoly on legal production, different degrees of legal pluralism are admitted,recognizing the rights of indigenous and peasant peoples and communities to have their own law,authorities, and forms of justice.

Along with the reforms which introduced pluralistic considerations comes another interna-tional tendency: the reception of the so-called “neoliberal” socio-economic model, which is basedon promoting deregulating mechanisms to smooth international transactions, freeing them from therules of competition and the market. The idea of the protectionist –welfare—state is abandoned. Inmany countries the effect of these policies has been to facilitate the presence of multinational extrac-tion corporations (timber, petroleum, mineral) on indigenous territories, where the state has turnedover broad powers to the companies while restricting those of the indigenous people who inhabitthe area. The conflicts between such companies and indigenous people have not been long in coming.

THE CONTENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN THE ANDEAN COUNTRIES4

The Andean countries that have reformed the constitution to include some form of recognition ofindigenous law and special jurisdiction are: Colombia (1991), Peru (1993), Bolivia (1994), Ecuador(1998) and Venezuela (1999). A comparative framework of the constitutional reforms in these coun-tries allows us to see some common characteristics. These states, in turn, are signatories of Agree-ment 169 of the International Working Group on Indigenous People and Tribes in IndependentCountries.

2 During the colonial era, diversity was dealt with through a politics of subordination and segrega-tion; during independence and the early republic through politics of assimilation or indigenouscultural disappearance, and since the mid-20th century, through integrationist politics whichpartially recognize indigenous rights yet retain their subordinate status. See: Marzal (1986) andYrigoyen (1995).

3 Van Coott (1999).4 For this point I use and update the article: Raquel Yr igoyen, “Reconocimiento Constitucional del

Derecho Indígena y la Jurisdicción Especial En Los Países Andinos (Colombia, Perú, Bolivia, Ec-uador)”, in: Revista Pena y Estado # 4. Buenos Aires, INECIP and Editorial El Puerto, 2000.

34BEYOND LAW Nº 27

Background: Pluralist Characterization of the Nation and the State

The first change one observes in these constitutional texts is the recognition of the pluri-culturaland multiethnic character of the state configuration or of the nation, which is the first time that thishas occurred in the history of these republics. This is very important because it is the basis forrecognizing linguistic and legal plurality, as well as the recognition of specific indigenous rights.The verb used in the constitutions is “recognize,” to the extent that the constitution is not “creating”the situation of cultural diversity, but rather recognizing it. 5 By officially assuming the pre-existenceof indigenous peoples and thereby making amends for a historical negation, the constitutions alsorecognize the preceding laws and open the possibility of co-existence and democratic participation.The fifth paragraph of ILO Agreement 169 explicitly states:

Recognizing the aspirations of such people to assume control of their own institutions andways of life and their economic development, and to maintain and strengthen their identi-ties, languages and religions within the framework of the States in which they live.

The Formula for Recognition of Legal Pluralism in Andean Countries

The formulas employed by the Andean countries for the recognition of customary or indigenouslaw contain similar elements and scopes, with a few variations worth considering. The recognitionof indigenous legal systems turns a democratic harmonization with the national legal system andstate powers into a possibility. It also allows for the reduction of institutional violence.6

The constitutional formulas employed in Andean countries generally include the recognitionof the jurisdictional or justice-related functions of indigenous community and/or peasant authori-ties according to their customary law, or their own norms and procedures, within the territorialsphere of indigenous or peasant peoples or communities. That is to say, they recognize the organs ofindigenous conflict resolution, and their norms and procedures. The limit to this recognition can belikened—with some variations—to that of Agreement 169 of the IWG, which states that there shouldbe no incompatibility between customary law and the fundamental rights defined by the nationallegal system, nor with internationally recognized human rights. Some constitutional formulas aremuch more limited on this point, but in this case the Article takes precedence, as I analyze below.Additionally, all of the constitutional texts make reference to a constitutional law which coordinatesor harmonizes a special jurisdiction or indigenous legal functions with the national legal system orstate powers.

Given that the Andean countries have ratified Agreement 169 of the IWG, the Agreementshould be interpreted alongside the constitutional text. It is worth noting that Article 35 of theAgreement should be used here as an interpretive criterion, as it establishes the primacy of thosenorms (including national agreements and policies) which afford the most rights and advantages toindigenous people (IP). The analysis that follows can also be applied to a great extent to the states

5 1991 Colombian Constitution, Art. 7: “The state shall recognize and protect the ethnic and culturaldiversity of the Colombian nation.” 1993 Peruvian Constitution, Ar t. 2: All people have rights ,paragraph 19: “To their ethnic and cultural identity. The state shall recognize and protect theethnic and cultural plurality of the nation.” Amendment to the 1994 Bolivian Constitution, Ar t. 1:“Bolivia [shall be] free, independent, sovereign, multi-ethnic and plur icultural [...].” 1998 Ecua-dorian Constitution, Ar t. 1: “Ecuador as a social state of law is sovereign, unitar y, independent,democratic, pluricultural and multiethnic.” 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, Article 100: “The popu-lar cultures which are par t of the Venezuelan identity enjoy special attention, recognizing andrespecting interculturality under the principle of the equality of cultures (...).”

6 Some object to constitutional recognition of indigenous legal systems, using the argument thatthe “creation” of many systems would generate chaos. Yet the constitutions are not creatinganything, but rather recognizing something which already exists in the social reality. What itdoes create are bridges of understanding and articulation, and conditions for their develop-ment.

35BEYOND LAW Nº 27

that have ratified Agreement 169 of the IWG without including explicit constitutional reforms torecognize indigenous law.

Agreement 169 of the IWG establishes, among other provisions:

Art. 8.2: Such peoples must have the right to preserve their own customs and institutions aslong as these are not incompatible with the fundamental rights defined by the national legalsystem, or with internationally recognized human rights. Whenever necessary, proceduresshould be established to resolve conflicts that may arise in the application of this principle.

Art. 9.1: To the extent that they are compatible with the national legal system and with inter-nationally recognized human rights, the methods customarily adopted by said peoples forthe repression of crimes committed by their members must be respected.

The Point of Recognition

The first thing that stands out in Agreement 169 of the IWG and the constitutional texts of theAndean countries (AC) is that there is recognition of three minimum elements:

a) The system of customary norms or law, including the normative and regulatory powers ofpeasant and indigenous communities and peoples (in the cases of Peru and Bolivia),

b) The special jurisdictional function (SJ) or the capacity to impart or administer justice. Thisincludes the autonomous validity and efficacy of the SJ’s decisions, and

c) The institutional system of authorities, or the power to govern with one’s own institutions ofself-government, including their own mechanisms for designating, changing and legitimatingauthorities.

Before constitutional reform, the regulation of the different Andean communities only al-lowed for custom as a secondary source of law, operating in law’s absence and never in contradic-tion to it (contra legem), which could constitute a crime. By recognizing the functions of justice andjurisdiction of the indigenous/peasant peoples and communities following their own law and ap-plying it through their own authorities, [the constitutional reforms] explicitly admit the existence ofdifferent organs of judicial, legislative and executive power for the production of law and legiti-mate violence. They admit the so-called customary law not only as a source of law, but rather as itsown law which can even be applied against [state] law.7

This is the position of constitutional scholars Bernales and Rubio. The recognition of a specialjurisdiction “allows for the exercise of the jurisdictional function by an organ or organizations thatare distinct from the Judicial Power, limiting the principle of the unity and exclusivity of the JudicialPower for that purpose, as enshrined in Section 1 of Article 139” (Bernales 1999: 682). Hence, whenindigenous or communal authorities exercise these jurisdictional functions, the ordinary courts mustrefrain from intervening or risk acting unconstitutionally, notes Rubio.8 In any case, the court wouldhave to prove that it was dealing with matters outside of the competency of special jurisdiction(such as when events take place outside of their territorial sphere).

Special jurisdiction includes all of the powers of any jurisdiction: Notio, Iudicium, Imperium orCoercio. That is, the authority to review relevant issues, including operative functions such as callingwitnesses, collecting evidence (Notio); the ability to resolve relevant issues using its own law

7 In the case of Peru this subject was explicitly debated in the Constitutional Assembly (CongresoConstituyente): the recognition of legal pluralism would allow for the application of customarylaw even when it violates [state] law, and that is why this norm merits constitutional—as op-posed to merely legal—status (Diario de Debates CCD, 12 April 1993 and 23 June 1993).

8 “We also understand that when a process of this type exists, the ordinary tribunals should re-strain themselves, even when they can act ‘de oficio,’ as f ailure to do so would be unconstitu-tional under this article (149)” (Rubio1999: 208).

36BEYOND LAW Nº 27

(Iudicium), and, finally, the ability to use force to render effective its decisions when necessary. Thisincludes actions that may restrain rights, such as executing detentions, demanding payment orlabor, etc. (Coercio or Imperium). 9 Colombia’s Constitutional Court has repeatedly recognized thejurisdictional nature of indigenous people, including the afore-mentioned powers.

Acts of personal coercion derived from the exercise of the special jurisdictional function (withinits territory and according to its laws) do not, by definition, constitute the usurpation of functionsof ordinary jurisdiction, or the crime of kidnapping, illegal privation of freedom or any other typeof crime, but are rather like the arrest, communal labor, imprisonment, seizure or containment towhich people are subject under the legitimate order of ordinary jurisdiction. As recognized by theconstitution itself, this represents the exercise of a right—the right of peoples and communities toexercise jurisdictional functions. As the exercise of a right cannot be considered a crime, not onlycan its exercise not be prohibited, it must moreover be protected and legitimized. The Constitu-tional Court of Colombia has repeatedly recognized these powers of special jurisdiction. This clearlyincludes not only general coercive powers, but also specific punitive powers which are outside ofthe realm of ordinary criminal jurisdiction (San Martín: 90-91).

The Official Subject of Law

Agreement 169 of the IWG has “indigenous peoples” as the official subject of law, while the consti-tutions of the Andean countries mention “peoples,” “communities,” “peasant and native communi-ties” and “peasant councils” (rondas campesinas). The constitutional text and the Agreement shouldbe interpreted systematically, using the interpretation most favorable to indigenous people. Basedon Agreement 169, Indigenous Peoples in general have the authority to apply their customary lawand exercise jurisdictional functions— not only in the communal instances mentioned in some con-stitutions (Peru). The concept of people (pueblo) is more comprehensive than that of community as itcan include forms of communal organization that are not recognized by the law or, while recog-nized, that do not fall within the letter of the law. This concept of people also includes supra-communal organizations, extended ethnic groups, federations or so-called “un-contacted people”with marginal legal status.10

To understand the effects of the definition of “indigenous people,” one must consider theright to self-definition enshrined in Agreement 169 (Article 1, section 2). If in fact the term “people”is broader than the term “community” that does not mean that these rights should not be recog-nized when there are only communities and not indigenous people with all their components. It isworth remembering that it is precisely colonial and republican history that has had the negativeeffect of pulverizing many peoples into communities, diluting and transforming many of the ele-ments of their identities. In some cases this impact includes the loss of indigenous languages, com-munal ownership of land (due to the expansion of haciendas during the republic), supra-communalpower structures, and the very act of calling themselves indigenous, due to the negative connota-tion assigned to that word. The term “indigenous” was successfully substituted by that of “peas-ant” (campesino) in several countries beginning mid-century and continuing until the present (Peru,Bolivia, and other Latin American countries such as Guatemala during the agrarian reform of 1952).It is important to realize that indigenous peoples and cultures are not static, even though concep-

9 See: Sánchez Botero and Jaramillo (2000: 130-131), who in turn cite the Omeba Legal Ency-clopedia in their definition of jurisdiction. Volume XVII, p. 538-9, SA. Buenos Aires .

10 Article 1, Section 1 says: b) it follows from Agreement 169 that the same shall be applied “tothose peoples in independent countries considered indigenous due to the fact that they havedescended from populations which inhabited a country or geographic region belonging to thecountry during the conquest, colonization, or establishment of current state boundaries, andwho—regardless of their legal situation—conserve all or part of their own social, economic, culturaland political institutions.”

37BEYOND LAW Nº 27

tions of them tend to be. Cultures and forms of social organization are constantly transforming andre-creating themselves. Therefore, there are many collectives—either Andean or of some otherorigin—that have their own identity differentiating them from the rest of national society, withtheir own legal culture and institutions, but which no longer speak indigenous languages nor main-tain customary elements which are considered part of the stereotypical indigenous identity.11

Indigenous Authorities

The constitutional charters mention the power of the authorities of indigenous/peasant peoples/communities to exercise jurisdictional or justice-related functions. The constitutions of Colombia,Peru and Ecuador simply speak of “authorities,” while in contrast the Bolivian constitution is moreexplicit in indicating “natural authorities,” as is that of Venezuela, which speaks of “legitimate au-thorities.” The reference to the “authorities of indigenous peoples or communities” alludes to thoseindividuals or collectives (assemblies, collegiate bodies) which, according to the indigenous sys-tems, have the authority to govern, resolve conflicts or regulate social life. This includes the author-ity of indigenous peoples and communities to have their own institutional system for self-gover-nance, the organization of social order and conflict resolution—what we would call justice orjurisdictional functions. This right, which relies on [indigenous people’s] own authorities, meansthat such authorities are named or designated under indigenous rules and have the powers thatindigenous peoples assign to them. Agreement 169 of the IWG refers to the recognition of the“institutions” of indigenous peoples, which would include not only specific authorities but also theform of institutional organization. Here it is fitting to include also the institutional systems that are“appropriated” by indigenous peoples, even though they are of foreign origin. State practices thatimply the nomination or imposition of certain people—indigenous or otherwise—as authorities ofindigenous peoples or communities become incompatible with this right. Moreover, they wouldconstitute a violation of the right to “cultural life” (article 27 of the International Pact on Civil andPolitical Rights), the right to self-identification (Agreement 169 of the IWG), and the constitutionalnorms recognizing the organizing autonomy of indigenous communities and peoples.

Jurisdictional Authorities

With regard to territorial, material and personal authority, the constitutions of Colombia and Perushare, a grosso modo, the same criteria based on territorial authority. The Bolivian constitution doesnot explicitly mention the topic. The Ecuadorian constitution speaks of jurisdiction with regard to“internal conflicts” without specifying whether this is with regard to territory, people or subject.The Venezuelan constitution limits territorial and personal authority. I will analyze the scope ofthese against the backdrop of Agreement 169 of the IWG.

Territorial Jurisdiction

In principle, Agreement 169 of the IWG (Articles 13-15) recognizes that indigenous peoples have theright to land and territory as a space for collective management. This refers to the place that they

11 The 1982 Canadian Constitution offers an interesting example of how to grant rights to collec-tives that do not properly fall within the category of “indigenous ,” but which have an indigenousheritage and identity differentiating them from the rest of the national society. This is the casewith the Métis, a multiracial (mestizo) collective arising from the combination of members of theFirst Nations, Inuits and Europeans, but with their own identity and demanding the applicationof rights recognizing them as indigenous people. In 1982 an amendment was added to theCanadian Constitution for the purpose of including the Métis among the aboriginal people ofCanada and recognizing the rights belonging to these people (Section 35, 2), despite the factthat they were not properly an indigenous people. The criterion used was that the Métis con-sider themselves to possess their own unique cultural identity, which is neither indigenous norWestern (Borrows and Rotman 1998: 465-497).

38BEYOND LAW Nº 27

occupy or utilize in some way for activities that allow for their material and cultural reproduction.Hence, having jurisdictional authority over that which occurs within such a space is part of the verydefinition of territorial rights. Jurisdiction over territory is nonetheless a minimum, not a con-straint, as the reach of the indigenous jurisdiction can extend to material and personal authority. Infact, under personal authority, the indigenous jurisdiction could have extra-territorial authority.

In the Colombian and Peruvian constitutions, the founding criterion of the indigenous juris-diction is territorial. That is, the indigenous jurisdiction and customary law are the rule within theterritorial space of indigenous or peasant people or communities. In these countries, the constitu-tion and laws recognize the territorial space/collective lands of indigenous, peasant or native peoplesand/or communities.

In Bolivia and Ecuador there is no specific mention of a territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, afitting interpretation of territorial rights as recognized by Agreement 169 of the IWG would be thatto the extent that matters of justice or administration and the application of norms are granted tothe authorities of indigenous people or communities, those same powers must apply within theterritories occupied and used in some way by such people. The Venezuelan Constitution expresslypoints out that indigenous authorities have the right to apply “their applications of justice” within theirterritory (habitat). Yet it also includes a limitation to personal authority that I will comment on later.

It is important to distinguish territorial jurisdiction in order to better understand cases andtherefore to validate the decisions of the indigenous jurisdiction and law.12 Indigenous law and thespecial jurisdiction have authority with respect to events, cases or situations, or legal relations thatoccur within the territorial sphere of indigenous peoples, peasant or native communities, or peasantcouncils (rondas) .13 Yet the efficacy of such decisions has a national scope.14

In order to give meaning to the concept of a “territorial sphere” it is important to use Agree-ment 169 of the IWG, which defines territory as “the totality of the habitat of the regions that thepeoples occupy or utilize in some way” (Art. 13.2) and even includes among territorial rights “landsthat are not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for theirtraditional and subsistence activities” (Art. 14.1). The territorial sphere is thus not equivalent to theproprietary lands of indigenous people, communities or councils, but rather to the geophysical spacethat they use in some way. This is important because in many countries not all indigenous peoples orcommunities have title to their land or perfectly delineated borders. Moreover, there are communi-ties that lack any legally recognized communal lands. In some cases, such as that of the PeruvianConstitution of 1993, the sale of communal lands is permitted unless it results in the disappearanceof the community as a collective entity subject to rights.15 The important point is that it deals withthe space upon which these peoples and communities interact in some way. It is in this space, there-fore, that indigenous/communal justice and law are applied. In this respect the Colombian Consti-tutional Court has established the precedent that the term “territory” not only refer to legallyrecognized lands, but also to those habitually occupied by an indigenous community16 or “those

12 I take this definition from Sánchez et al. 1999: 13213 The Colombian Constitutional Cour t has upheld the same criterion: “In Ruling ST-496 of 1996

(…) it was affirmed that one of the elements of this jurisdiction is (...) of a geographic nature,which allows each community to judge matters which occur within its territory (...)” (Sánchez etal. 1999: 132).

14 We can see the validity of the decisions of indigenous authorities throughout the national ter-ritory; for example, using the national police to return fugitives to the indigenous territory andindigenous authorities so that the imposed punishment can be carried out in indigenous terri-tory. See Ruling ST-349 of 1996 (Sánchez et al. 2000: 133).

15 In Peru, the peasant councils of farms and villages do not have communal lands but do havedelineated public spaces along the edges of the farm, village or hamlet (which is the space ofthe registered families who participate in the assemblies).

16 “For example, this is the case with Ruling T-254 of 1994: despite the fact that the indigenouscommunity had not even legalized the property on the occupied land, the Court considered theexercise of the legal capacities within the territory on which the community had settled to be aprecedent” (Sánchez et al. 2000: 133).

39BEYOND LAW Nº 27

partially possessed areas which comprise not only habitats and exploited lands but which also con-stitute the traditional realm of their economic and cultural activities” (Ruling T-384 of 1994).17

A point on the Venezuelan case: the Venezuelan constitution is the only one which expresslyreduces the territorial authority to personal authority as indicated in Article 260:

The legitimate authorities of the indigenous peoples may apply in their region (hábitat) onlythose instances of justice based on their ancestral traditions which affect their members [...].

Hence, it appears to follow from this article that the indigenous jurisdiction can only be ap-plied to cases within the [indigenous] territory or habitat that affect its members, while it cannot beapplied—even within the [indigenous] habitat—when a third party, meaning non-indigenous per-sons, is affected. There are two principles in conflict here. One alludes to the idea that a legal systemapplies to those who participate in the same social and cultural frameworks. However, this principlecan be countered by another: the need to strengthen and appropriately guarantee the recognizedcollective rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined in several articles of the Constitution. Here asystematic interpretation becomes necessary. If the third parties carry out acts within indigenousterritory which in no way affect indigenous rights or goods, then it would not make sense forindigenous law and jurisdiction to be enforced. Yet in the event that the third parties affect or insome way compromise the goods, rights or relevant interests of indigenous peoples or their mem-bers, such peoples have the right to intervene to protect said rights. The Venezuelan Constitutionitself, in articles 119 and 121, recognizes the right to “existence and self-organization,”18 such as theright to native lands, culture, form of organization, practices and customs. Therefore, if third par-ties enter indigenous territories or habitat and commit acts which affect or in some way compro-mise the existence, customs, rights or collective goods of indigenous peoples or their members, thenthe indigenous peoples have a legitimate right to intervene and defend their rights. This is not toimply, however, that any specific mechanisms that are developed to resolve intercultural conflictsare permissible, even if they violate human rights.

Additionally, there is also an extra-territorial competence or jurisdiction for the case of indig-enous people who commit acts outside of the sphere of indigenous territory, which I will analyzelater.

Material Competence

The indigenous special jurisdiction has the competence to review all matters that it deems conve-nient within its territorial realm (that of the indigenous people/community) and, under certaincircumstances, even outside of that territory, with regard to certain members. Neither the constitu-tions of the Andean countries nor Agreement 169 establishes a limit on the subject matter or theseriousness of crimes that can be handled under indigenous law. And where the law makes nodistinction, the interpreter cannot distinguish, cut down or reduce. This breadth is consistent with

17 Sánchez et al. (2000: 133).18 Venezuelan Constitution, “Ar ticle 119, on the right to existence and autonomous organization:

The state shall recognize the existence of indigenous peoples and communities, their social,political and economic organization; their cultures, practices and customs, languages and reli-gions, as well as their territory and native rights to the lands that they have traditionally occu-pied and which are necessary to develop and guarantee their ways of life. It shall be the taskof the National Executive, with the participation of indigenous peoples, to demarcate theselands and guarantee the right to collective ownership, which shall be inalienable, non-nego-tiable and non-transferable, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.”“Article 121, on the right to indigenous cultural and ethnic identity: Indigenous peoples havethe right to maintain and develop their ethnic and cultural identity, worldview, values, spir itualityand sacred spaces of worship. The state shall encourage the valuation and diffusion of indig-enous people’s cultural manifestations, [and recognizes] indigenous people’s rights to theirown education and a curriculum which is intercultural and bilingual and which pays heed to theirsocio-cultural par ticularities, values and traditions.”

40BEYOND LAW Nº 27

the fact that the special jurisdiction or justice must conform with “their norms and procedures”(Colombian Constitution), “customary law” (Peruvian Constitution), “customs and procedures”(Bolivian Constitution), “customs or customary law” (Ecuadorian Constitution), or “ancestral tradi-tions, norms and procedures” (Venezuelan Constitution); that is, in accordance with the ruling legalsystem of the indigenous people or community. Because each legal system has its own way of clas-sifying and reconstructing social facts according to its own values and categories, it is also up toeach system to define which social facts seem relevant to merit its intervention. Moreover, the veryconstruction of relevant facts is culturally conditioned, and does not necessarily coincide with orcorrespond to the categories of official law, even though such categories might be utilized for rea-sons of comparison. This breadth of subject matters is also dealt with in Agreement 169, whichmentions, tellingly, matters referring to the ownership and use of land, methods for punishingcrimes, the form of social, political and economic organization. In summary, indigenous legal sys-tems have the authority to oversee all matters, regardless of gravity or scope, in which they have aninterest in making such matters agree with their norms and procedures.19

A point with regard to the Venezuelan Constitution: it states that the application of instances ofjustice within the [indigenous] habitat is to be “based on ancestral traditions.” This does not necessarilymean that indigenous people are subjects of the past and cannot innovate. That is why, in the inter-ests of developing a systematic interpretation, it is necessary to underscore the fact that the recog-nition of the special indigenous law and jurisdiction provided by the Constitution and Agreement169 of the IWG does not refer to specific norms, traditions, customs or procedures, but rather to thepower to self-regulate and resolve those social conflicts that are deemed relevant.

In summary, the special jurisdiction has the power to review matters that it considers rel-evant, whether or not they are codified in official law, considered mild or serious, or whether theyqualify as criminal or civil under official law, as the special jurisdiction is not determined by statelaw, but rather by its own law.20 The Peruvian constitutional scholar Marcial Rubio clarifies thispoint in his analysis of the extent of Article 143 of the 1993 Peruvian Constitution:

Jurisdiction shall be exercised according to customary law. This means that the customs ofthe place will be applied (…). Any type of custom may be applied: those that fill a gap in thelaw and those that reinforce the law because they are mentioned within it (…) but also thosethat go against the law (traditionally prohibited under our law), and it is precisely for suchcases that such authorization is necessary (Rubio 1999: 200).

Criminal law scholar César San Martín also accepts this point of view in pointing out that thespecial jurisdiction (also called the community, indigenous or traditional jurisdiction) constitutes anexception to the ordinary jurisdiction, and in such cases it is the ordinary jurisdiction which must notintervene.21 The Colombian Constitutional Court has made a similar ruling, recognizing the compe-tence of the special jurisdiction even in cases of homicide (Sánchez et. al. 2000: 132). Any externalreduction of the matters that can be reviewed under the special jurisdiction would be counter to the

19 Some legal efforts at constitutional development in some countries (such as Peru, Argentina,Mexico), attempt to reduce the material competence of indigenous people to fewer or less se-rious cases, or only to civil or criminal cases where public goods are not at stake. Nonetheless,this limitation has no legal basis in either the constitutions or in Agreement 169 of the IWG,which explicitly mentions criminal matters.

20 Bernales 1999, Rubio 1999, San Mar tín 1999, Peña 1994, Yrigoyen 1994, 1995.21 “Criminal infractions fall under the ordinary jurisdiction, which is the basic or common form of

jurisdiction. All processes that are not explicitly attributed to other jurisdictions fall under theordinary jurisdiction, exceptions to this must be casuistically laid out in terms of scope and pro-cedures. From this point of view there are, as noted above, three types of special jurisdiction:first is the juvenile jurisdiction (jurisdicción tutelar [menores]). Second is military jurisdiction. Thirdis traditional jurisdiction, which is dedicated to the application of customary criminal law for mat-ters deemed criminal under the law which are committed by members of the Native and PeasantCommunities within their territory” (San Martín 1999: 90-91).

41BEYOND LAW Nº 27

constitutional ruling and would affect the fulfillment of Agreement 169 of the IWG. In any case, thespecial jurisdiction itself can decide, if it sees fit, to delegate matters or cases to the ordinary juris-diction for review, or to ask for military or police support. The lack of legal arguments establishinglimits to the jurisdictional competence of indigenous peoples reflects the persistence of the colonialidea that the indios only have the competence to handle small or marginal cases that do not affect thelaw.

Personal Competence

Personal competence has only been explicitly mentioned in one constitution. The wording of theColombian and Peruvian Constitutions can be understood as meaning that the indigenous jurisdic-tion extends to all individuals within indigenous territory, such that it in effect establishes the basisfor territorial competence. In Bolivia it depends on what is established by “their customs and pro-cedures.” And in Ecuador it depends on what their own law defines as an “internal matter,” hencethere are cases in which indigenous people and communities consider a case to be internal when ittakes place within their territory or affects indigenous individuals or goods, even when such casesinvolve the participation of non-indigenous people. In almost every country the communities aremixed, the migration rates are high and the inter-ethnic relations are frequent and complex.

The right to one’s own law has two bases. One, which might be characterized as cultural, isthe fact of the individual’s participation in a certain cultural system. In principle each human personor group has the right to be judged within the normative system pertaining to their culture. Theother—which may be characterized as political—deals with the protection of a collective’s power tocontrol its institutions and determine what happens within its territory, thereby guaranteeing itsreproduction as a collective and the rights of its members. This second basis avoids the possibilitythat people who do not belong to indigenous peoples or communities (i.e., non-indigenous) mightcommit harmful acts within the indigenous territory claiming as a defense that they cannot bejudged under such a system. In general, harmful acts that occur within indigenous communities andare committed by non-indigenous actors usually result in no reparation at all as such individuals tryto free themselves from the control of the indigenous systems and are beyond the reach of the state.Moreover, the intervention of state mechanisms in indigenous peoples and communities has chippedaway at indigenous legal systems, thereby affecting the very life of the community. The constitu-tions of the Andean countries show a clear commitment to protect the cultural and biological exist-ence of indigenous peoples, as well as to strengthen indigenous law. And Agreement 169 of the IWGhighlights among its considerations, “the aspirations of the Indigenous Peoples to control theirinstitutions.” Here it is clear that indigenous law is strengthened by affirming its application overindigenous and non-indigenous people throughout indigenous territory, with the goal of protectingindigenous rights and goods. This allows for the strengthening of indigenous community life andavoids the intervention or presence of the police, judges, or other agents of state law, who forcenturies have weakened indigenous peoples and communities. This in turn is the operating logic ofany legal system. In summary, when we examine the constitutional goal of recognizing and strength-ening the special jurisdiction within the [indigenous] territorial realm, we do not find argumentswhich a priori exclude from judgment any non-indigenous individuals who commit punishable actswithin communal territory.22

22 This point is a matter of discussion in Colombian jurisprudence as well as in other countries. Itattempts to take into account whether the outsiders were familiar with indigenous customs. Inpractical terms, the communities apply some rules to outsiders, especially with regard to com-pensation for damages, but not others that depend on a person’s participation in the cultureand the community. Cultural belonging is an impor tant criterion for judging any person—indig-enous or not—but it should not be used as a pretext for outsiders to evade responsibility fordamages done to indigenous/peasant peoples/communities.

42BEYOND LAW Nº 27

Another point of contention with regard to personal competence involves the voluntary orobligatory nature of the system for indigenous people. That is, whether indigenous people who donot wish to be subjected to the jurisdiction are required to do so, or whether they can turn toanother system. The different Andean constitutions clearly establish that the authorities of the in-digenous people and communities have the power to apply indigenous law and the special jurisdic-tion or indigenous justice. That is, the authority rests in said people and in their institutions forcollective decision-making. It is not up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be sub-jected to indigenous law or justice. As with every legal system, the indigenous legal systems haveareas of obligatory intervention—such as when goods that the community considers part of thepublic interest are affected—and optional areas of intervention—such as in individual or familymatters—, yet the system as a whole is obligatory and is imposed on individuals; otherwise thevery validity of the system itself would be at stake. Agreement 169 of the IWG establishes the rightsof indigenous people (IP) to apply their own methods to the prosecution of crimes committed bytheir members (Article 9.2). It establishes, on the one hand, the rights of IP members before thestate, to be judged by the methods of their own people rather than according to state law. Yetbecause the responsibility of IP is to the collective rather than to individuals, the system is notvoluntary for people as individuals; thus individuals are in no position to legally flee from theirsystem when they find it “inconvenient” to pay for a mistake, work, or comply with a sanction. Inany case, under the special jurisdictional power of indigenous people, the people themselves dohave the ability to consider under what circumstances they choose to intervene, which cases theyjudge directly, or even when they might request the collaboration of the police or ordinary jurisdic-tion. The rulings of the Colombian Constitutional Court are consistent on this point, maintainingthat the community—not individuals—has the power of jurisdiction, and that its members cannotescape from it when it is convenient (i.e., to flee sanction). The special jurisdiction also includes theright to rely on the help of the public forces (police) when some individuals attempt to flee fromindigenous justice without paying for the damages caused within the community.23

Another subject is that of personal competence with regard to indigenous people outside ofthe indigenous territory/habitat. Here the cultural basis for law would apply. In dealing with situ-ations or events that only affect indigenous people but which take place outside of communal terri-tory (for example a conflict between a couple or an issue within a family), it is clear that indigenouslaw and jurisdiction can intervene, as the cultural and normative framework is still in effect for suchpersons. In such cases it would be up to the indigenous jurisdiction to decide whether or not tointervene. In such cases an appropriate parallel can be made to international law, as there are civiland even criminal cases in which national systems have extra-territorial powers in order to definerights and obligations or sanctions, such as family relations, inheritance and succession, and sometypes of crime. I insist that this depends on the decision of the indigenous bodies as to whether ornot to decide to intervene. It is sufficient for the affected person to demand the intervention of hisor her system and to question the intervention of the ordinary jurisdiction, when this is part of thelegal practice of a certain community or people. If the special jurisdiction is ready to intervene, theordinary jurisdiction must step aside.

In the cases of the competence of the ordinary jurisdiction, including those in which actsoccurred outside of the territorial realm, [the law] is required to consider the cultural conditioningof the indigenous actors during judgment and sanction. This could conceivably lead to an indig-enous territorial exemption and affect the goods and rights of third parties, including the attenua-

23 This is the ruling of the Colombian Constitutional Cour t. To guarantee the coercive power of theindigenous special jurisdiction (ius imperium), the Court has ordered the Colombian police tocollaborate with indigenous authorities in the capture of those who have fled indigenous terri-tory as a way to evade sanction: Ruling ST-349 of 1996. See: Sánchez Botero et al. (2000:142).

43BEYOND LAW Nº 27

tion of punishment, when the actions are not considered reprehensible in the relevant indigenousculture.24 Two principles are at work here. In the first place, a person cannot be condemned forcommitting acts that are acceptable within his or her culture, as he or she can offer no real defense.In the second place, when dealing with issues that are differently valued by different cultures, theequal dignity of cultures prevents one cultural orientation from criminalizing a practice that is cul-turally accepted by other peoples. In any case, there is a vast task here for intercultural dialogueand agreement.

Human Rights: Limit or Standard

The only limit to customary law established by Agreement 169 (Article 8.2) is the non-violation offundamental and human rights. In this sense, those who attempt to suggest that the special jurisdic-tion should be subordinated to the ordinary jurisdiction, or that it cannot interfere with the ordi-nary jurisdiction, or that it should be controlled or reduced, are using an interpretation that is notin harmony with either the letter or the spirit of Agreement 169, nor with the principles of a system-atic, teleological and progressive interpretation.

The Peruvian Constitution establishes a similar limit in Article 149, which indicates that theexercise of special jurisdictional powers should be done in conformity with customary law “as longas it does not violate the fundamental rights of the individual.” The constitutions of the otherAndean countries tend to be more restrictive. Those of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuelalimit the recognition of the special jurisdiction (Colombia) or of indigenous justice (Bolivia), func-tions of justice (Ecuador) or applications of justice (Venezuela) with regard to the constitution andits laws. The Venezuelan Constitution also adds the notion of public order (orden público) as anexception. In such a case, it is obvious that the indigenous special jurisdiction will be severely lim-ited. Given that such limitations are less favorable to indigenous communities than the provision ofAgreement 169 of the IWG, the norm which concedes more rights and advantages to such commu-nities is the one which takes effect, as laid out by Article 35 of Agreement 169 of the IWG, which haslegal standing in all of the Andean countries. Along these lines, the Colombian Constitutional Courthas upheld a ruling that if the special jurisdiction had to respect the entire constitution and all of thelaws, it would become void of meaning, hence it need only respect what are called the fundamentalminimums: the right to life (no killing), physical integrity (no torture), freedom (no enslavement),and the predictability of the sanction as a principle of due process.25

I argued above that the exercise of jurisdictional functions can involve certain legitimate, legalrestrictions on rights (detentions, investigations, sanctions, some forms of personal coercion, etc.)which do not constitute a crime or violation of human rights per se. If a certain measure violateshuman rights, then that measure should be analyzed, but the mere use of the special jurisdiction byindigenous communities and authorities does not itself constitute a violation.

Intercultural Interpretation of Human Rights

In the different constitutions of the Andean countries, the state recognizes the pluri-cultural charac-ter of the nation/state/republic and, consequently, the right to cultural diversity. Moreover, it rec-ognizes legal pluralism, with the corresponding right to an indigenous/peasant special jurisdiction(with its legal and jurisdictional powers). Therefore, the definition and interpretation of humanrights cannot remain in the hands of a single cultural orientation nor a single institutional systemwithout jeopardizing the right to diversity. Human rights must be defined and interpreted based on

24 This is dealt with in Article 15 of the Peruvian Criminal Code of 1991, under the heading of theerror of culturally conditioned understanding. It is also established by Agreement 169 de laIWG (Art. 9, section 2: 10 and 12).

25 See: Sánchez Botero (1998) and Sánchez et al. (2000).

44BEYOND LAW Nº 27

intercultural dialogue. Thus, any perceived violation must be handled within the Andean countriesthemselves. Under no circumstances can the mere exercise of the special jurisdiction, where appro-priate, be considered a violation of human rights, given that it is a constitutional right.

In the case of possible conflicts between customary law and human and fundamental rights,Agreement 169 of the IWG states that adequate procedures must be established to resolve such con-flicts (Article 8.2). Such procedures have not been established and must be created in consultationwith indigenous people (Article 6). The objective of such procedures would be to guarantee anintercultural interpretation of the events and of the law itself in order to honor the recognition ofthe right to diversity as laid out in the different constitutions of the Andean countries. One possibil-ity might be the creation of mixed courts composed of state judges and indigenous or communityauthorities who employ moderate rules to resolve apparent conflicts between the special jurisdic-tion and human rights (rather than based on a single law: either state law or customary law), tryingto understand the different positions (from their own cultural frameworks) and promoting ar-rangements to prevent violence and the violation of human rights (attending to the demands andneeds of all sides).26 The goal is for the indigenous/communal peoples and authorities not to remainas mere bystanders of an ever-distant exercise of jurisdictional power, passively submitting to theinterpretation of ordinary judges, but rather for jurisdictional authorities to be truly vested with allthe powers granted to them by the constitution. The construction of a pluri-cultural state shouldstart with respect for the equal dignity of differences and be based on dialogue and negotiation.This is the position advanced by Will Kymlicka, one of the foremost advocates of the theory ofmulticultural citizenship, who says that in multicultural situations involving indigenous people, na-tional minorities, or cultures with a certain level of self-governance, the fact that such groups sub-mit to a human rights framework does not necessarily mean that they must answer to national lawor national courts, but rather that they can create courts with equitable participation from both thefederal jurisdiction and said indigenous peoples or minorities.27

Coordination

The different constitutions establish that there should be a law of coordination between the specialjurisdiction and the national legal system (Colombia), judicial power (Peru) or national justice sys-tem (Venezuela). Ecuador and Bolivia use the term “harmonization” (compatibilización).28 First, it isimportant to point out that this is a law of “coordination” and not of “regulation,” as some havemistakenly understood. The validity of the special jurisdiction is not subject to this law, as repeat-edly clarified in the decisions of the Colombian Constitutional Court, whose constitution is thebasis for other Andean constitutions.29 Second, it is important to point out that the word “coordina-tion” establishes a horizontal relationship rather than one of control, revision, or some form ofsubordination. The point is to establish a system that allows for a harmonious and peaceful relation-ship between the special jurisdiction and the ordinary jurisdiction under democratic—not subordi-

26 I have addressed this proposal in other works (Yrigoyen 1994, 1995 and 1999). The make upof these mixed tribunals does not exclude the support of anthropological or community-basedexperts. A similar proposal has been made by the Peasant Councils in their regional (2000)and national (2001) meetings.

27 Kymlicka questions the assumption that indigenous peoples must submit to the constitution orto federal courts composed entirely of non-indigenous. He suggests “the creation of a bilateralhuman rights tribunal (…) in which both parties [would be] equally represented” (Kymlicka 1996:232-3).

28 I offer some possible suggestions for a Law of Coordination in Yrigoyen (1994 and 1999).29 “The right to administer justice within their territory and to rule according to their own norms and

procedures (…) is immediately effective and requires no further ruling by the Colombian stateto be recognized.” Ruling of the Colombian Constitutional Court: T-254 of 1994, C-139 of 1996,C-349 of 1996, T-496 of 1996 and T-23 of 1997 (Sánchez et al. 2000: 118). This is also theposition of Rubio 1999, Bernales 1999, Yrigoyen 1994, 1995.

45BEYOND LAW Nº 27

nate—conditions. One of the needs for coordination is the establishment of rules on the resolutionof conflicts over competence, mechanisms for cooperation and mutual aid. Third, within a demo-cratic mindset of intercultural dialogue, the law must establish procedures to resolve perceivedconflicts between human rights and the special jurisdiction. Yet this coordinating power does notautomatically bestow upon the authorities of the ordinary jurisdiction the power to control or over-see the authorities of the special jurisdiction. Fourth, the law would also have to create adequatemechanisms for direct coordination between the special jurisdiction and different public entitiessuch as the police, the Public Ministry, local governments, the Public Registry (for example, to recordthe special jurisdictional decisions which modify property registries or individual records). Fifth,the law must create a normative adjustment between the constitution, Agreement 169 of the IWGand all other national regulations, so as to further develop aspects that are not clear in the constitu-tion. While the law can in no way reduce or restrict rights, it can broaden or develop them. This lawwould have to be discussed with indigenous people in order to have legal status (according toArticle 6 of Agreement 169 of the IWG) and legitimacy (consensus), as a first step toward theconstruction of a pluri-cultural state.

REFERENCES

ALERTANET- Portal de Derecho y Sociedad/ Portal on Law & Society. www.derechoysociedad.com .

América Indígena (1999). Pluralismo Jurídico y Derechos Indígenas en América Latina. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista,Vol. LVIII, 1-2.

Bernales, Enrique (1999). La Constitución de 1993. Análisis comparado. Lima: Constitución y Sociedad ICS.

Borja, Emiliano (2001). Introducción a los Fundamentos del Derecho Penal Indígena. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

Borrows, John and Leonard Rotman (1998). Aboriginal Legal Issues. Markham, Ontario: Butterworths.

Clavero, Bartolomé (2000). Ama Llunku, Abya Yala: Constituyencia Indígena y Código Ladino por América. Madrid: Centrode Estudios Constitucionales.

Congreso Constituyente Democrático (1993). Actas del Debate. 29a. “P” Sesión permanente (vespertina), 20 July1993.

Hurtado Pozo, José (1995). Impunidad de personas con patrones culturales distintos. Revista Derecho Nº 35. Lima: Facultadde Derecho, PUCP.

Kymlicka, Will (1996 ). Ciudadanía Multicultural. Barcelona: Paidos.Marzal, Manuel (1986). Historia de la Antropología Indigenista: Mexico y Perú. Lima: PUCP.

Mesa de Pluralidad Jurídica y Derechos Étnicos (1994). Pluralidad Cultural y Derechos Étnicos. Propuesta de reformaconstitucional. In Desfaciendo Entuertos, N. 3-4.

Rubio Correa, Marcial (1999). Estudio de la Constitución Política de 1993 . Volume V. Lima: PUCP.

Sánchez Botero, Esther (1998). Justicia y Pueblos Indígenas de Colombia. Bogota: UNC and UNIJUS.

Sánchez, Esther and Isabel C. Jaramillo (2000). La Jurisdicción Especial Indígena. Bogota: Universidad Nacional.

San Martín, César (1999). Derecho Procesal Penal. Vol. I. Lima: Ed. Grijley.Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (1998). La Globalización del Derecho. Bogota: ILSA.

——(1994). Entrevista. In Desfaciendo Entuertos , 3-4, pp. 27-31.

——(1991). Estado, Derecho y Luchas Sociales. Bogota: ILSA.

Van Cott, Donna Lee (1999). Constitutional Reform and Ethnic Rights in Latin America. New York: St. Martin Press.

Yrigoyen Fajardo, Raquel (2000a). “Tratamiento Judicial de la Diversidad cultural y la jurisdicción especial en el Peru.”In XII Congreso Internacional. Derecho Consuetudinario y Pluralismo Legal: Desafíos del Tercer Milenio . Arica:Universidad de Chile and Universidad de Tarapacá (272-285).

——(2000b). “Un balance de la post-reforma: Constitución Pluralista, Judicatura Monista.” In Institute of Latin Ameri-can Studies, University of London. April, 2000.

——(1999a). Pautas de Coordinación entre el Derecho Indígena y el Derecho Estatal. Guatemala: Fundación Myrna Mack.——(1999b). “Reconocimiento constitucional del derecho indígena y la jurisdicción especial en los Países Andinos

(Colombia, Perú, Bolivia, Ecuador).” In Revista Pena y Estado, 4.

——(1996a). “Control Penal y Diversidad Étnico-cultural.” In Diego, María et al (coord.). Conflicto Social y Sistema Penal.Salamanca: COLEX and Universidad de Salamanca.

46BEYOND LAW Nº 27

——(1995a). De la Criminalización de la diferencia cultural a la legitimación de un orden pluralista (Perú, Países Andinos).Master ’s Thesis in the Penal System and Social Problems. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.

——(1995b). Constitución, Jurisdicción Indígena y Derecho Consuetudinario. Lima: CEAS and Desfaciendo Entuertos.

——(1994). “Apuntes sobre el artículo 149 de la Constitución Peruana: Alcances, límites, consecuencias y retos.” InDesfaciendo Entuertos, 3-4, pp. 19-26.

——(1993). Las Rondas Campesinas de Cajamarca. Una aproximación desde la antropología jurídica. Lima: PUCP.

——(1992). “Pluralidad Jurídica y Propuestas de Reforma Constitucional.” In Primer Taller Nacional sobre RondasCampesinas, Justicia y Derechos Humanos. Cajamarca: Obispado de Cajamarca and CEAS.

47BEYOND LAW Nº 27

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F L

EG

AL

PL

UR

AL

ISM

AN

D IN

DIG

EN

OU

S L

AW

IN T

HE

AN

DE

AN

CO

UN

TR

IES

PO

INT

SA

GR

EE

ME

NT

169

1991

PO

LIT

ICA

L19

93 P

OL

ITIC

AL

1994

RE

FO

RM

S19

98 P

OL

ITIC

AL

1999

PO

LIT

ICA

LO

F C

OM

PAR

ISO

NO

F T

HE

IWG

CO

NS

TIT

UT

ION

CO

NS

TIT

UT

ION

TO T

HE

PO

LIT

ICA

LC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F C

OL

OM

BIA

OF

PE

RU

OF

TH

E R

EP

UB

LIC

OF

EC

UA

DO

RO

F V

EN

EZ

UE

LA

OF

BO

LIV

IA

1. BA

SIS

:S

tate

rec

og

niz

es th

ep

luri

-cu

ltu

ral n

atu

reo

f th

e n

atio

n o

r it

isd

efin

ed a

s su

ch.

-Con

side

ring…

the

evol

utio

n of

inte

rnat

iona

l law

sin

ce 1

957

and

the

situ

atio

n of

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es (…

)it

is a

dvis

able

to a

dopt

new

inte

rnat

iona

l nor

ms

rega

rdin

g th

isis

sue,

with

the

aim

of e

limin

atin

g th

eor

ient

atio

n to

war

ds a

ssim

ilatio

n of

the

prev

ious

nor

ms;

-Rec

ogni

zing

the

desi

re o

f the

sepe

ople

to a

ssum

e co

ntro

l of t

heir

own

inst

itutio

ns a

nd w

ays

of li

fe a

ndof

thei

r eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent a

ndto

mai

ntai

n an

d st

reng

then

thei

rid

entit

ies,

lang

uage

s, re

ligio

ns,

with

in th

e bo

unda

ries

of th

e st

ate

inw

hich

they

live

.

Art

. 7: T

he s

tate

reco

gniz

es a

ndpr

otec

ts th

e cu

ltura

lan

d et

hnic

div

ersi

ty o

fth

e C

olom

bian

nat

ion.

Art

. 2: E

very

one

has

right

s, in

c. 1

9: T

o th

eir

ethn

ic a

nd c

ultu

ral

iden

tity.

The

sta

tere

cogn

izes

and

prot

ects

the

ethn

ican

d cu

ltura

l plu

ralit

yof

the

natio

n.

Art

. 1: B

oliv

ia—

free

,in

depe

nden

t, so

ver-

eign

, mul

tieth

nic

and

plur

i-cul

tura

l, an

dco

nstit

utin

g a

unita

ryR

epub

lic—

ado

pts

for

its g

over

nmen

t the

dem

ocra

tic, r

epre

sen-

tativ

e fo

rm b

ased

on

the

solid

arity

of a

llB

oliv

ians

.

Art

. 1. E

cuad

or is

aso

cial

sta

te o

f law

whi

ch is

sov

erei

gn,

unite

d, in

depe

nden

t,de

moc

ratic

, plu

ri-cu

ltura

l and

mul

tieth

nic.

Its

gove

rnm

ent i

sre

publ

ican

, pre

side

n-tia

l, el

ectiv

e, re

pres

en-

tativ

e, re

spon

sibl

e,al

tern

ativ

e, [p

rom

otes

]pa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

has

ade

cent

raliz

edad

min

istr

atio

n (.

..).

Art

. 100

: The

pop

ular

(bas

e) c

ultu

res

that

cons

titut

e th

eV

enez

uela

n id

entit

ym

erit

spec

ial a

ttent

ion,

reco

gniz

ing

and

resp

ectin

g [th

eir]

inte

r-cu

ltura

l [na

ture

] und

erth

e pr

inci

ple

of th

eeq

ualit

y of

cul

ture

s(.

..).

2. Text

rec

og

niz

ing

Leg

al P

lura

lism

a)In

dig

eno

us

and

Cu

sto

mar

y L

awb

) th

e In

dig

eno

us

Juri

sdic

tio

n a

nd

c) In

dig

eno

us

Inst

itu

tio

ns

(in

dep

end

ent

auth

ori

ties

an

din

stit

uti

on

s)

Art

. 8.2

: Suc

h pe

ople

s m

ust h

ave

the

right

to c

onse

rve

thei

r ow

n cu

stom

san

d in

stitu

tions

as

long

as

thes

e ar

eno

t inc

ompa

tible

with

the

fund

amen

-ta

l rig

hts

defin

ed b

y th

e na

tiona

lle

gal s

yste

m, o

r with

inte

rnat

iona

llyre

cogn

ized

hum

an ri

ghts

. Whe

neve

rne

cess

ary,

pro

cedu

res

shou

ld b

ees

tabl

ishe

d to

reso

lve

conf

licts

that

mig

ht a

rise

in th

e ap

plic

atio

n of

this

prin

cipl

e.A

rt. 9

.1: T

o th

e ex

tent

that

they

are

com

patib

le w

ith n

atio

nal l

egal

syst

em a

nd w

ith in

tern

atio

nally

reco

gniz

ed h

uman

righ

ts, t

hem

etho

ds tr

aditi

onal

ly e

mpl

oyed

by

such

peo

ple

for t

he re

pres

sion

of

crim

es c

omm

itted

by

thei

r mem

bers

,m

ust b

e re

spec

ted.

Art

. 246

: The

aut

hori

-tie

s of

the

indi

geno

uspe

ople

s ca

n ex

erci

seju

risdi

ctio

nal p

ower

sw

ithin

thei

r ter

ritor

y in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

eir

own

norm

s an

dpr

oced

ures

whe

neve

rth

ese

are

not c

ontr

ary

to th

e C

onst

itutio

n an

dla

ws

of th

e R

epub

lic.

The

law

will

est

ablis

hth

e w

ays

of c

oord

inat

-in

g th

is s

peci

alju

risdi

ctio

n w

ith th

ena

tiona

l leg

al s

yste

m.

Art

. 149

: The

aut

hori

-tie

s of

the

peas

ant a

ndna

tive

com

mun

ities

,w

ith th

e su

ppor

t of t

hepe

asan

t cou

ncils

( ron

das)

, can

exe

rcis

eju

risdi

ctio

nal p

ower

sw

ithin

thei

r ter

ritor

y in

acco

rdan

ce w

ithcu

stom

ary

law

as

long

as th

is d

oes

not v

iola

tefu

ndam

enta

l rig

hts

ofth

e pe

rson

. The

law

esta

blis

hes

form

s of

coor

dina

tion

of s

uch

spec

ial j

uris

dict

ion

with

the

just

ices

of t

hepe

ace

and

with

the

othe

r ins

tanc

es o

f the

judi

cial

pow

er.

Art

. 171

: (...

)T

he n

atur

al a

utho

ritie

sof

the

indi

geno

us a

ndpe

asan

t com

mun

ities

can

enfo

rce

the

adm

inis

trat

ion

and

appl

icat

ion

of th

eir

norm

s as

an

alte

rna-

tive

solu

tion

toco

nflic

ts, i

n ac

cor-

danc

e w

ith th

eir

cust

oms

and

proc

e-du

res

whe

neve

r the

sear

e no

t con

trar

y to

the

Con

stitu

tion

and

itsla

ws

. The

law

will

harm

oniz

e th

ese

func

tions

with

the

dutie

s of

the

stat

e.

Art

. 191

: (...

)T

he a

utho

ritie

s of

the

indi

geno

us p

eopl

esex

erci

se le

gal

func

tions

, app

lyin

gth

eir o

wn

norm

s an

dpr

oced

ures

for t

here

solu

tion

of in

tern

alco

nflic

ts, i

n ac

cor-

danc

e w

ith c

usto

mar

yla

w, w

hene

ver t

hese

are

not c

ontr

ary

to th

eC

onst

itutio

n an

d its

law

s. T

he la

w w

ill m

ake

thes

e fu

nctio

nsco

mpa

tible

with

the

natio

nal j

udic

ial

syst

em.

Art

. 260

: The

legi

timat

eau

thor

ities

of t

hein

dige

nous

peo

ples

can

appl

y in

stan

ces

ofju

stic

e w

ithin

thei

rte

rrito

ry b

ased

on

ance

stra

l tra

ditio

nsac

cord

ing

to th

eir o

wn

norm

s an

d pr

oced

ures

whi

ch o

nly

affe

ct th

eir

mem

bers

, as

long

as

they

are

not

con

trar

yto

this

Con

stitu

tion,

the

law

, and

pub

lic o

rder

.T

he la

w w

ill d

eter

min

eth

e fo

rm o

f coo

rdin

a-tio

n of

this

spe

cial

juris

dict

ion

with

the

natio

nal j

udic

ial

syst

em.

48BEYOND LAW Nº 27

No

men

tion

of w

heth

erth

is a

pplie

s on

ly to

indi

geno

us p

eopl

e.O

nly

esta

blis

hes

ate

rrito

rial c

riter

ion

with

out l

imits

on

mat

eria

l/sub

ject

.Im

port

ant t

o un

der-

stan

d th

at a

pplie

s to

ever

yone

with

inin

dige

nous

terr

itory

.

3. Su

bje

cto

f rec

og

nit

ion

and

resp

ect

1. T

heir

own

cust

oms/

cus

tom

ary

law

.2.

The

ir ow

n in

stitu

tions

3. T

heir

own

met

hods

for t

he c

ontr

olof

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es (i

nclu

ding

met

hods

for c

ontr

ol o

f crim

e).

1. T

heir

own

norm

san

d pr

oced

ures

2. In

dige

nous

peo

ple’

sau

thor

ities

3. J

uris

dict

iona

lfu

nctio

ns.

1. C

usto

mar

y la

w,

2. A

utho

ritie

s of

the

com

mun

ities

and

Pea

sant

Cou

ncils

/In

dige

nous

peo

ples

3. J

uris

dict

iona

lfu

nctio

ns.

1. T

heir

own

norm

s,cu

stom

s an

d pr

oce-

dure

s2.

Nat

ural

aut

horit

ies

of c

omm

uniti

es/

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es3.

Pow

ers

to a

dmin

is-

ter a

nd a

pply

thei

r ow

nno

rms

as a

n al

tern

a-tiv

e so

lutio

n to

conf

licts

.

1. C

usto

mar

y la

w,

norm

s, c

usto

ms

and

proc

edur

es2.

Indi

geno

us p

eopl

e’s

auth

oriti

es3.

Fun

ctio

ns o

f jus

tice.

1. T

radi

tiona

l and

ance

stra

l nor

ms

and

proc

edur

es2.

Indi

geno

us p

eopl

e’s

auth

oriti

es3.

App

licat

ion

ofin

stan

ces

of ju

stic

e.

4. Th

e b

enef

icia

ries

of

rig

hts

and

rec

og

nit

ion

1. In

dige

nous

peo

ple

in in

depe

nden

tco

untr

ies

2. T

ribal

peo

ples

.

1. In

dige

nous

peo

ples

.1.

Pea

sant

Com

mun

i-tie

s2.

Nat

ive

Com

mun

ities

3. P

easa

nt C

ounc

ils( R

onda

s C

ampe

sina

s)4.

Thr

ough

ratif

icat

ion

of A

gree

men

t 169

of

the

IWG

, als

o:In

dige

nous

peo

ples

.

1. In

dige

nous

com

mu-

nitie

s2.

Pea

sant

com

mun

i-tie

s3.

Thr

ough

ratif

icat

ion

of A

gree

men

t 169

of

the

IWG

, als

o:In

dige

nous

peo

ples

.

Indi

geno

us p

eopl

es.

Indi

geno

us P

eopl

es.

5. Terr

ito

rial

Co

mp

eten

ce

Not

exp

licitl

y m

entio

ned.

With

in th

eir t

errit

oria

lre

alm

: the

indi

geno

uspe

ople

’s te

rrito

ry.

With

in th

eir t

errit

oria

lre

alm

: the

terr

itory

of

peas

ant c

omm

uniti

es,

nativ

e co

mm

uniti

es,

peas

ant c

ounc

ils a

ndin

dige

nous

peo

ples

.

With

in th

eir t

errit

oria

lre

alm

: ter

ritor

y of

indi

geno

us a

ndpe

asan

t com

mun

ities

and

indi

geno

uspe

ople

s.

Not

indi

cate

d, a

lthou

ghth

ere

is m

entio

n of

“inte

rnal

con

flict

s”(u

ncle

ar w

heth

er th

ispe

rtai

ns to

issu

es,

subj

ects

of t

he la

w, o

rte

rrito

ry).

With

in th

eir t

errit

ory.

6. Mat

eria

lC

om

pet

ence

1. A

ll is

sues

, unl

imite

d2.

Incl

udin

g cr

imin

al s

ubje

cts:

“rep

ress

ion

of c

rimes

com

mitt

ed b

yth

eir m

embe

rs.”

All

issu

es, u

nlim

ited.

All

issu

es, u

nlim

ited.

All

issu

es, u

nlim

ited.

All

issu

es, u

nlim

ited.

All

issu

es, u

nlim

ited.

7. Per

son

alC

om

pet

ence

1. In

gen

eral

: not

spe

cific

ally

men

tione

d (a

rt. 8

.2)

2. W

ith re

gard

to re

pres

sion

of

crim

es: m

embe

rs o

f ind

igen

ous

grou

ps (a

rt. 9

.1).

No

men

tion

of w

heth

erlim

ited

to p

easa

nts

and

nativ

es. O

nly

esta

b-lis

hes

a te

rrito

rial

crite

rion

with

out l

imits

on s

ubje

cts.

Can

be

unde

rsto

od a

sap

plyi

ng to

eve

ryon

ew

ithin

pea

sant

/in

dige

nous

terr

itory

.

No

men

tion

of w

heth

erlim

ited

to in

dige

nous

.O

nly

esta

blis

hes

ate

rrito

rial c

riter

ion

with

out l

imits

on

subj

ect.

Can

be

unde

rsto

od a

sap

plyi

ng to

eve

ryon

ew

ithin

pea

sant

/in

dige

nous

terr

itory

.

Spe

aks

of “i

nter

nal

conf

licts

” (no

t exp

licit

whe

ther

this

refe

rs to

terr

itory

, sub

ject

s or

issu

es).

Onl

y af

fect

s th

eir

mem

bers

(ind

igen

ous

peop

les)

.

49BEYOND LAW Nº 27

8. Lim

its

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F L

EG

AL

PL

UR

AL

ISM

AN

D IN

DIG

EN

OU

S L

AW

IN T

HE

AN

DE

AN

CO

UN

TR

IES

PO

INT

SA

GR

EE

ME

NT

169

1991

PO

LIT

ICA

L19

93 P

OL

ITIC

AL

1994

RE

FO

RM

S19

98 P

OL

ITIC

AL

1999

PO

LIT

ICA

LO

F C

OM

PAR

ISO

NO

F T

HE

IWG

CO

NS

TIT

UT

ION

CO

NS

TIT

UT

ION

TO T

HE

PO

LIT

ICA

LC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICC

ON

ST

ITU

TIO

NO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F T

HE

RE

PU

BL

ICO

F C

OL

OM

BIA

OF

PE

RU

OF

TH

E R

EP

UB

LIC

OF

EC

UA

DO

RO

F V

EN

EZ

UE

LA

OF

BO

LIV

IA

1. In

gen

eral

, tha

t the

ir cu

stom

s an

din

stitu

tions

not

be

inco

mpa

tible

:a)

with

the

fund

amen

tal l

aws

reco

gniz

ed b

y th

e na

tiona

l jud

icia

lsy

stem

, and

b) w

ith in

tern

atio

nally

reco

gniz

edhu

man

righ

ts.

2. In

crim

inal

mat

ters

, met

hods

of

cont

rol m

ust b

e co

mpa

tible

with

:a)

the

natio

nal l

egal

sys

tem

, and

b) in

tern

atio

nally

reco

gniz

ed h

uman

right

s.

Nor

ms

and

proc

e-du

res

cann

ot b

eco

ntra

ry to

1. C

onst

itutio

n an

d2.

Law

s of

the

Rep

ublic

.

Mus

t not

vio

late

:1.

The

fund

amen

tal

right

s of

the

pers

on.

Cus

tom

s an

dpr

oced

ures

can

not b

eco

ntra

ry to

:1.

Con

stitu

tion

and

2. L

aws

of th

eR

epub

lic.

Nor

ms

and

proc

e-du

res

of C

usto

mar

yLa

w c

anno

t be

cont

rary

to:

1. C

onst

itutio

n an

d2.

Law

s.

Nor

ms

and

proc

e-du

res

cann

ot b

eco

ntra

ry to

1. C

onst

itutio

n, a

nd2.

Law

s3.

Pub

lic o

rder

.

9. Law

of

Co

ord

inat

ion

or

Har

mo

niz

atio

n

(...)

[S]h

ould

est

ablis

h m

echa

nism

sto

reso

lve

conf

licts

in th

e ap

plic

atio

nof

the

prin

cipl

e of

inco

mpa

tibili

tybe

twee

na)

the

cons

erva

tion

of th

eir o

wn

cust

oms

and

inst

itutio

ns a

ndb)

fund

amen

tal h

uman

righ

ts.

The

law

will

est

ablis

hfo

rms

of c

oord

inat

ion:

a) o

f spe

cial

juris

dic-

tion,

with

b) th

e na

tiona

l leg

alsy

stem

.T

his

has

not b

een

regl

amen

ted

by la

w,

but t

here

is ju

rispr

u-de

nce.

The

law

of c

oord

ina-

tion:

a) o

f spe

cial

juris

dic-

tion ,

with

b) ju

stic

es o

f the

peac

e an

d th

e ju

dici

alpo

wer

.It

is s

till n

ot a

law

.

The

law

will

har

mon

ize:

a) th

ese

func

tions

(adm

inis

trat

ion

and

appl

icat

ion

of th

eir

norm

s), w

ithb)

the

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

of th

e po

wer

s of

the

stat

e.T

here

are

sev

eral

norm

s, b

ut n

o sp

ecifi

cla

w.

The

law

will

har

mon

ize:

a) th

e fu

nctio

ns o

fju

stic

e of

indi

geno

uspe

ople

s, w

ithb)

thos

e of

the

natio

nal

lega

l sys

tem

The

re is

stil

l no

law

.

The

law

sha

ll de

ter-

min

e th

e fo

rm o

fco

ordi

natio

n of

:a)

the

spec

ial

juris

dict

ion

with

b) th

e na

tiona

l leg

alsy

stem

.T

here

is s

till n

o la

w.

10.

Sys

tem

atic

loca

tio

nP

art

I: G

ener

al P

olic

y.- A

rtic

le 8

, sec

tion

2- A

rtic

le 9

, sec

tion

1T

he c

hapt

er th

atre

fers

to th

e Ju

risdi

c-tio

nal F

unct

ion

high

light

s tw

o ty

pes

ofju

risdi

ctio

n:a)

ord

inar

yb)

spe

cial

or i

ndig

-en

ous,

with

in th

eau

tono

mou

s re

gim

e of

the

indi

geno

uspe

ople

s.

Cha

pter

refe

rrin

g to

judi

cial

pow

er. L

ocat

edat

end

of c

hapt

er. A

lso

calls

it s

peci

alju

risdi

ctio

n. N

ot a

ver

ysy

stem

atic

trea

tmen

t.

Cha

pter

refe

rrin

g to

the

Judi

cial

Fun

ctio

n.Lo

cate

d at

the

end

ofch

apte

r.

Sec

tion

VIII

of J

udic

ial

Fun

ctio

n.T

he o

nly

artic

le o

nju

dici

al p

ower

.S

yste

mat

ic tr

eatm

ent.

Cha

pter

III o

f Jud

icia

lP

ow

er a

nd th

e Ju

stic

eS

yste

m. S

ectio

n O

ne:

Gen

eral

Pro

visi

ons.

11.R

atif

icat

ion

of

Ag

reem

ent 1

69R

atifi

ed in

199

1R

atifi

ed in

199

3 (le

gally

depo

site

d in

199

4)R

atifi

ed in

199

2R

atifi

ed in

199

8R

atifi

ed M

ay 2

2, 2

002.