Summary:
In 2021, this case was brought against several Colombian government agencies by two peasants from Saravena (Arauca), José Noé Mendoza Bohórquez and Ana Librada Niño de Mendoza. Previously, in 2015 and 2016, the plaintiffs had been displaced from their homes and crops by flooding of the Bojabá River. Several state entities denied the plaintiffs assistance as displaced persons because they were not listed in the Single Registry of Victims (RUV), which at the time included more than eight million people affected by violence in Colombia, because as environmentally displaced people they did not fall under the definition of victims of forced displacement in place at the time.
The plaintiffs filed a tutela action alleging the violation of their fundamental rights, including their rights to housing, food, life and personal safety. The court of first instance and the Superior Court of Bogotá found that the tutela action was inadmissible. However, in 2024, the Colombian Constitutional Court found that forced displacement due to a natural disaster should be considered to fall under the definition of internal forced displacement. It held that forced displacement in Colombia is not caused only by armed conflict, but also occurs due to environmental causes, such as flooding, volcanic eruptions or landslides. Having regard to the facts of the case — including the plaintiffs’ vulnerability, the fact that they were forced to abandon their home due to an environmental disaster, the devastation of their home and property, and the danger that it represented for their integrity and well-being (paras. 203-204) — the Court found that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated.
The Court found that the authorities had an obligation to apply a human rights-based approach and adopt structural measures in favor of persons affected by natural disasters. The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to develop a regulatory framework to protect people displaced by environmental causes.
Notably, the ruling does not distinguish between displacement due to environmental causes and that due to climate change. Instead, it defines environment-induced displacement in para. 58 of its judgment as “forced internal displacement due to disasters, events associated with climate change and environmental degradation”.
Full text of the Constitutional Court ruling:
The full text of the ruling can be found here or downloaded below.
More information on the case:
For more information on the case, see this post by Zoé Briard in the blog of the UCLouvain’s Centre Charles De Visscher.
For reporting on the case (in Spanish), see El Pais.
Suggested citation:
Constitutional Court (Colombia), Mendoza Bohórquez and Librada Niño de Mendoza v. Colombia, 16 April 2024, Case T-123.
Last updated:
29 November 2024.