In ruling T-530-2024, the Constitutional Court urged the national government, led by the Ministry of the Interior, to issue regulations allowing for coordination between indigenous territories and reserves and territorial and national entities, with the aim of ensuring peaceful coexistence in areas inhabited by diverse ethnic and social groups.
The case arose from a writ of protection filed by members of the Community Action Board of Ricaurte, municipality of Páez, Cauca, against the authorities of the Ricaurte Indigenous Reserve. The plaintiffs alleged that the social control measures exercised by the indigenous authorities affected the rights of the non-indigenous inhabitants of the territory, and that the possible imposition of the teaching of the Nasa Yuwe language in the only educational institution in the area jeopardized the right to education of non-indigenous children.
The Second Review Chamber analyzed the case under two main axes: (i) the application of indigenous authorities’ own law on social control and coexistence, and (ii) the impact of intercultural education in the local school. After examining current regulations and the principles of indigenous autonomy, the Court determined that social control actions must be coordinated with municipal and national entities to guarantee the rights of all inhabitants.
In reaching its decision, the Court considered: (i) peaceful coexistence as one of the purposes of the State and its duty to guarantee it; (ii) the constitutional and regulatory development of indigenous territories and reserves; (iii) the constitutional limits on the exercise of indigenous peoples’ autonomy and intercultural dialogue as a mechanism for resolving intercultural social conflicts; (iv) It applied the concept of “prospective de facto action”, a legal tool that allows intervention when there is a high probability that state action will result in the future violation of fundamental rights. (v) Ethno-education as a constitutional guarantee of the right to education of indigenous communities, (vi) Particularities of the territory and the Nasa indigenous people in delimiting their territory and exposing the public order situation that afflicts them, and (vii) the characteristics and scope of the rules, procedures, and sanctions of social control for coexistence exercised by indigenous authorities.
In this case, the Court identified an imminent risk of harm to the rights of the plaintiffs and ordered specific measures to prevent such harm, including expanding the coordination plan between indigenous authorities and the municipal government to include specific actions to protect the rights of non-indigenous persons, the establishment of coordination mechanisms between the municipal police inspectorate and indigenous authorities to regulate the operation of commercial establishments, and technical support from the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice in consolidating social control agreements in the area.
Finally, it urged the Ministry of the Interior to regulate coordination between territories and indigenous reserves, and the Court called on the Government and Congress to process and enact the organic law for the formation of Indigenous Territorial Entities, in order to close regulatory gaps and strengthen intercultural coexistence in the country.
