Peru Defends Amazon Isolation Protections at Landmark Rights Court Hearing

A landmark hearing before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights drew to a close on Friday, with Peru defending its record on protecting Indigenous peoples who live in isolation in the Amazon against encroaching logging and other activity.

The two-day proceedings in Montevideo, Uruguay, marked the first time the tribunal has taken up a case involving peoples living in isolation in Peru. At its centre are the Mashco Piro, Yora and Amahuaca, who inhabit remote stretches of the Peruvian Amazon.

Indigenous organisations argue that logging concessions and other incursions have driven outsiders deeper into forests the groups rely on, raising the prospect of violent encounters and of exposure to diseases against which isolated peoples may have little immunity.

"Many of our brothers and sisters have already disappeared, and we don't want the Mashco Piro to suffer the same fate," Maglin Alvarado Vargas, a leader of the Yine Indigenous people from the Native Community of Monte Salvado, told the court. "It is in your hands whether they can survive."

Peru has maintained that it has adopted laws, protocols, monitoring systems and other measures to protect isolated Indigenous peoples. The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Julio Cusurichi, of the Native Federation of the Madre de Dios River and Tributaries, known by its Spanish acronym FENAMAD, countered that those protections are not being applied on the ground. "The government is not taking action to safeguard the rights of these peoples," he said, warning that continued incursions could threaten their survival.

The dispute has deep roots. FENAMAD raised concerns about logging in Mashco Piro territory in the 1990s and sought emergency protection from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2005; the commission, which is separate from the court, granted protective measures in 2007. A formal petition followed in 2011, and in 2022 the commission found Peru responsible for violating the rights of the three peoples. The case reached the court in 2024 after the commission concluded Peru had not complied with its recommendations.

Teresa Mayo of Survival International, an Indigenous rights organisation backing the case, described the hearing as historic and said communities and their allies want the court to hold Peru accountable and to require stronger protection of Mashco Piro territory and their right to remain isolated. The aim, she said, is to guarantee the group can "remain uncontacted, with their land fully protected."

At issue is the territory available to isolated peoples and whether extractive activity can be permitted there. Maritza Quispe, a lawyer with Peru's Legal Defense Institute representing the Indigenous side, said the case could set an important precedent on the ancestral land rights of peoples living in isolation and on whether governments may authorise extraction in their territories. Peruvian law generally bars outside activity in reserves set aside for isolated Indigenous peoples, she noted, but includes an exception permitting natural resource exploitation when authorities deem it a public necessity.

One lawyer for the Indigenous groups told the court that Peru had "flagrantly violated" principles meant to shield isolated peoples, including avoiding contact with them and keeping their territories free of outside activity.

According to Indigenous organisations, the Mashco Piro number more than 750 and live in southeastern Peru and across the border in Brazil. Encounters with outsiders have already proved deadly: in 2024, two loggers were killed in bow-and-arrow attacks after entering Mashco Piro territory, and later sightings placed members of the group near active logging areas. Contact also carries grave risk for the Mashco Piro themselves, since isolated peoples have little immunity to common illnesses carried by outsiders, meaning even a cold or flu could prove fatal.

The parties have until October 26 to file their final written arguments. The court will then deliberate and issue a judgment, though no date has been set for a ruling.