The petition is concerned with a series of violations of rights of community members caused by the pollution coming from a mettalurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. The Petitioners argued that in failing to control and supervise the facility and to mitigate the pollution, the state of Peru was guilty of those violations.
The petitioners claimed that community members were exposed to high levels of lead, arsenic and other dangerous substances exceeding the levels recommended by the Peruvian government and the World Health Organization. The inhabitants’ health suffered from this with just some examples being an increase in diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and irreversible respiratory system damage.
The petitioners claimed that the government could have adopted measures to improve the situation for example emissions control, requiring the facility to fulfil the regulatory obligations or relocating the most exposed population.
Next to the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (right to life) due to the health risks and physical harm, the petitioners pointed out that the population of La Oroya suffered psychological harm due to anxiety caused by the environmental contamination. They argued that this constituted a violation of Article 5 (right to humane treatment).
Moreover, the petitioners claimed that the State of Peru violated Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression), because they failed to properly inform the community on the dangers of the environmental pollution caused by the facility and even manipulated information so as to spread the belief that the situation was not serious.
Further articles that were allegedly violated were Articles 19 (rights of the child), 8 (right to a fair trial), 25 (right to judicial protection) and 11 (right to privacy) of the Convention and it was also referred to Articles 10 (right to health) and 11 (right to a healthy environment) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Commission held that the petition was admissible with regard to all the violations brought forward with the exception of the right to privacy under Article 11. It stated that the alleged health problems, if proven to be a result of environmental pollution caused by the facility, could represent violations of the right to life under Article 4, the right to humane treatment under Article 5 and the rights of the child under Article 19 of the Convention. Furthermore, the alleged lack and manipulation of information could represent a violation of the freedom of thought and expression of article 13 of the Convention.