Yesterday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published a landmark ruling in the case of Pueblos Indígenas Tagaeri y Taromenane v. Ecuador, the first case in its 45-year history to address the rights of Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.
The case concerns Ecuador’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights of the Tagaeri and Taromenane Peoples — names attributed by Western society to two groups of the Waorani people from the western Ecuadorian Amazon who live in isolation in their ancestral territories. The case also extends to other voluntarily isolated peoples of the Eastern Amazon, whose territories, resources, and way of life were severely impacted by extractive activities. While Ecuador had designated a protected area (Zona Intangible Tagaeri Taromenane or ZITT) to prohibit extractive activities and prevent external interference, it failed to enforce territorial protections, allowing continued encroachment by oil companies and illegal loggers. The case also concerns three instances of violent events — in 2003, 2006, and 2013 — that led to the deaths of several members of these communities, as well as the abduction of two girls.
This judgment not only strengthens but also expands the Inter-American Court’s remarkable jurisprudence on Indigenous rights, which began with Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001) and has been significantly developed ever since. Faced with the unique circumstances of Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation (referred to as “PIAV”), the Court took on the challenge of further refining its interpretation of the right to self-determination — particularly in relation to the Right to Prior and Informed Consent. By doing so, the Court set a crucial precedent by explicitly recognizing the principle of “No Contact” as fundamental to the self-determination and survival of uncontacted Indigenous groups.
This article reflects on the Court’s legal findings regarding voluntary isolation and explores the broader implications of the ruling for international human rights law and state obligations toward Indigenous peoples who have chosen to remain uncontacted.
The Legal Recognition of Voluntary Isolation as a Protected Status
Around 200 groups of Indigenous Peoples currently live in voluntary isolation or in initial contact, according to data published by the UN – with most residing in remote forests in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Venezuela. Data from the NGO Land is Life confirmed the existence of 66 such peoples in the American Continent, with 119 yet to be confirmed. The OHCHR defines Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation as “peoples or segments of Indigenous peoples who do not maintain regular contact with the majority population and who also tend to avoid any form of contact with individuals outside their group”, while the IACHR complements this definition by including those who were previously contacted but decided to return to the condition of isolation.
As reflected in the Inter-American Commission’s 2013 Report on PIAVs in the Americas, “Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact hold human rights while being in a uniquely vulnerable situation and are among the few who cannot advocate for their own rights”, which makes making the protection of their rights even more crucial. They are considered ecosystemic peoples, as defined by the OHCHR, as they live in a strict relationship of dependence on their ecological surroundings, from which they derive their livelihood, worldview, social institutions, customs, and notion of well-being.
In its jurisprudence, the Court had already established guidelines on the interpretation of the rights and freedoms contained in the American Convention in cases involving Indigenous or tribal peoples, in light of their particular circumstances and human rights treaties and instruments specifically referring to them. Hence, there is no doubt that Indigenous and Tribal peoples enjoy a protected status. In this case, the Court went a step further and added that PIAV’s special condition of isolation is an additional consideration when analyzing their rights, particularly, in the application of the principles of self-determination and consultation and the application of the right to collective property (par. 184).
By doing so, the Court acknowledged, for the first time, that voluntary isolation is not merely a cultural preference but a legally protected status under the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court had previously specified the consequences of such a protected status, for instance, in Furlan v. Argentina (2012):
[A]ny person who is in a vulnerable situation is entitled to special protection, based on the special duties that the State must comply with to satisfy the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights. (…) [I]t is not sufficient for States to refrain from violating rights, and it is imperative to adopt affirmative measures to be determined according to the particular protection needs of the subject of rights, whether on account of his personal situation or his specific circumstances.
The horrendous consequences of the intrusion by non-Indigenous persons into the territory of a relatively isolated Indigenous people are not new to the Inter-American System. Back in 1985, the Inter-American Commission was called upon to analyze the “devastating physical and psychological consequences” such an incursion had on the Yanomami people in Brazil (Case No. 7615), resulting in “the breakdown of their millennia-old social organization, introduced prostitution among women — something previously unknown — and caused a large number of deaths due to epidemics of influenza, tuberculosis, measles, venereal diseases, etc.”. In its Resolution n. 12/85, the Commission declared that the omission of the Government of Brazil in adopting timely and effective measures in favor of the Yanomami people had resulted in violations of their rights to life, liberty, security, residence and movement and to the preservation of health and well-being.
The Court’s evaluation of Ecuador’s failure to fulfil its duty to protect the Tagaeri and Taromenane peoples is a direct consequence of the recognition of this protected status, with broad implications for states with uncontacted Indigenous populations. The decision makes clear that merely designating a protected area is insufficient – rather, active state intervention is required to safeguard Indigenous isolation. The Court suggested that monitoring mechanisms, environmental assessments, and stringent penalties against encroachments must be implemented as part of a comprehensive protection strategy.
This aspect of the Tagaeri and Taromenane decision has the potential to influence legal frameworks beyond the Inter-American system. By recognizing voluntary isolation as a legally protected status and extending the precautionary principle to Indigenous survival, the ruling sets a precedent that could shape the interpretation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and regional Indigenous rights mechanisms.
The Right to No Contact as a Manifestation of the Right to Self-Determination
The right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples is firmly established in ILO Convention n. 169, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP, and numerous other international instruments. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights further recognized last year, in the case Pueblos Rama y Kriol v. Nicaragua, holding that the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples is rooted in the right to cultural identity, and therefore encompassed in Article 26 of the American Convention.
Since 2007, the year of the case Saramaka People vs. Suriname, the Court has progressively developed the right to consultation, shaping it over nearly two decades into one of the most significant pillars of Indigenous rights in the Inter-American system. Nonetheless, all previous cases referring to natural resource extraction and other state-led projects and the States’ obligation to ensure Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (“FPIC”) that reached the Court’s docket have addressed Indigenous peoples who maintain regular contact with non-Indigenous society. These consolidated standards become inapplicable in cases involving PIAVs as, in the terms of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016), “Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact have the right to remain in that condition”.
This creates a unique legal challenge: on the one hand, states are obligated to consult Indigenous populations before taking any action that affects them; on the other, they are strictly prohibited from interfering with the voluntary isolation of PIAVs or initiating forced contact. As the Court clearly articulated: “It is not possible to require a stricto sensu consultation process in order to guarantee their right to self-determination.” Rather than a contradiction, nonetheless, this apparent dilemma underscored the need for a more nuanced legal framework that reconciles both obligations.
The Court resolved this issue by framing the state’s duty to ensure Free, Prior, and Informed Consent as a subset of its broader obligation to provide effective protection — one that accounts for the specific vulnerabilities, cultural norms, and distinct legal status of Indigenous and Tribal peoples. In most cases, consultation and FPIC remain the gold standard. However, for PIAVs, the fundamental legal principle that must be upheld is non-contact, as their very choice to remain isolated serves as an expression of self-determination. This approach is another consequence of the Court’s recognition of voluntary isolation as a legally protected status highlighted above.
Additionally, the ruling revolutionizes the interpretation of consent in international Indigenous rights law. While consultation and FPIC are core principles of Indigenous legal protections, the Court recognized that in cases of voluntary isolation, consent is demonstrated through the affirmative choice to remain uncontacted. Consequently, states must interpret this choice as an explicit rejection of external intervention rather than a void that justifies engagement.
Conclusions and Implications
The Tagaeri and Taromenane case marks a landmark moment in Indigenous rights jurisprudence, setting a precedent with far-reaching implications. By explicitly recognizing the right to voluntary isolation and imposing state obligations to enforce protective measures, the Inter-American Court has significantly strengthened the legal framework for uncontacted peoples in Latin America and beyond. As States’ implementation of their Human Rights obligations continues to clash with pressure from economic interests, infrastructure projects, and resource extraction, this ruling serves as a critical reminder that Indigenous self-determination is not solely about participation — it is also about the right to remain apart.
Beyond its legal significance, the decision highlights the urgent need for states to develop specialized legal and policy instruments tailored to the unique vulnerabilities of uncontacted peoples. Enforcing strict prohibitions on extractive industries and unauthorized activities in Indigenous territories is essential to preventing further encroachment. Strengthening territorial monitoring and enforcement mechanisms is equally critical, ensuring that legal protections are not merely symbolic but actively upheld. National conservation strategies must also incorporate Indigenous perspectives, recognizing that these communities are not passive beneficiaries of environmental policies but active stewards of their lands.
As Judge Mac-Gregor Poisot noted in his separate vote, it is particularly symbolic that this case was adjudicated less than a month before the United Nations’ commemoration of the International Day of Indigenous Peoples, whose 2024 theme specifically focused on Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and Initial Contact. This ruling, therefore, is not just a legal milestone but a hopeful step forward — one that reaffirms the global responsibility to respect and safeguard the existence of uncontacted Indigenous communities.
