The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(IACtHR) have taken markedly different approaches to Indigenous land disputes, as illustrated
by the cases Handölsdalen Sami Village v. Sweden (2010) and Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina
(2020). While the ECtHR narrowly assessed procedural fairness and formal property rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the IACtHR recognized collective land tenure, cultural survival, and
positive state obligations.
ASSEDEL’s report examines these divergent rulings, emphasizing the ECtHR’s reliance on
domestic legal frameworks and the IACtHR’s embrace of Indigenous customary rights and
international standards like UNDRIP and ILO Convention No. 169. The analysis highlights key
differences in evidential flexibility, legal subjectivity, and remedial measures, proposing reforms
to align the ECtHR’s jurisprudence with the needs of Indigenous communities.
To deepen the discussion, the report explores overlooked aspects, such as the role of cultural
identity under Article 8 ECHR and the potential for anti-discrimination claims under Article 14.
By comparing regional approaches, ASSEDEL underscores the need for a more inclusive
interpretation of property rights and state obligations in Indigenous cases.
To read the full report, you can click here.