You are on page 1of 6

Digitally signed by APEX Inc

Date: 2017.10.09 18:35:20 +00:00
Reason: Apex Certified
Location: Apex

BZCV2014/002 Page 11760 of 11765 10/09/2017

Filing Attorney & Advocate: Monica Coc Magnusson
Regional Bar No. MAGM1454BZ
Service Address: VOA Road,
Punta Gorda Town, Belize, Central America
Tel. No. 501-652-2075
E-mail address: mcmag08@gmail.com

Advocate: Magali Marin Young, SC
Regional Bar No. YOUM20111166BZ
Service Address:
828 Coney Drive
P.O. Box 2208
Belize City, Belize
Tel: 501-223-3044
magali@marinyoung.com

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OFJUSTICE
Appellate Jurisdiction

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE

CCJ Appeal No. BZCV2014/002
BZ Civil Appeal No 27 of 2010

BETWEEN

THE MAYA LEADERS ALLIANCE, and
THE TOLEDO ALCALDES ASSOCIATION on behalf of the Maya villages of Toledo District, and
JUAN POP on behalf of the Maya village of Golden Stream, and
DOMINGO CAL on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Aguacate, and
LUCIANO CAL on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Bladen, and
ALBERTO HUN on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Blue Creek, and
CANDIDO CHO on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Crique Jute, and
LUIS CHO on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Crique Sarco, and
PEDRO CUCUL on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Dolores, and
MANUEL CHOC on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Indian Creek, and
ALFONSO OH on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Jalacte, and
MARIANO CHOC on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Jordan, and
EDWARDO COY on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Laguna, and
PABLO SALAM on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Medina Bank, and
ROLANDO AUGUSTINE PAU on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Midway, and
LORENZO COC on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Otoxha, and
SANTIAGO COC on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Pueblo Viejo, and
SILVINO SHO on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Antonio, and
IGNACIO TEC on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Benito Poite, and
GALO MEJANGRE on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Felipe, and
FRANCISCO CUS on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Marcos, and
MARCOS ACK on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Miguel, and
JUAN QUIB on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of San Vicente, and
LIGORIO COY on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Santa Anna, and
ELIGORIO CUS on his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya village of Santa Theresa.

BZCV2014/002 Page 11760 of 11765 10/09/2017
BZCV2014/002 Page 11761 of 11765 10/09/2017

Appellants
AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
Respondent

BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In compliance with the Court’s directive given on the 21st day of September 2017 to file a brief
statement of issues for inclusion on the agenda for the next hearing of this matter no later than the
9th day of October 2017, the Maya villages, individuals, and organizations that are the Appellants
in this matter report on the outstanding issues of Belize’s compliance with the April 22, 2015 Order
(“the Order”) as follows:

I. Facts – update since January 2017
(a) Interference with Maya use, value and enjoyment of customary land
1. Ongoing incursions into Maya lands by the government or with the government’s tolerance
or acquiescence remain a central problem for the Maya people. For example, there have been
further incursions in Jalacte village, with third parties settling on lands used by the village,
including lands that had been occupied by the government during road construction, without
permission of the village. A real estate company has been advertising Crique Jute lands for sale;
the village does not know on behalf of whom they are purportedly doing so or whether any have
purportedly been sold. New logging has taken place in lands used by Golden Stream village and
Dolores village.

2. To date, the government has provided no guidance as to how such issues ought to be
reported, nor as to what person or entity is responsible for resolving them. The Appellants have
sent letters to the Toledo Maya Land Rights Commission (“the Commission”), to the Attorney
General, the Forestry Department advising of such incursions, all of which have been met only by
silence.

3. The litigation by Santa Cruz and Jalacte villages remain active and the government has not
responded at all to the Maya villages' attempts to resolve those claims through discussion.

4. Since the January report, the Appellants have reiterated to the Commission and its lawyers
on a number of occasions the urgent need for a clear reporting and resolutions process. To the best
of the Appellants' knowledge, neither the Commission nor anyone in the government has taken
any steps to designate anyone to assume responsibility for complying with paragraph 4 of the April
22, 2015 Order (“Consent Order”). Furthermore, members of the Commission have made public
statements to the effect that paragraph 4 does not enjoin the government at all.

BZCV2014/002 Page 11761 of 11765 10/09/2017
BZCV2014/002 Page 11762 of 11765 10/09/2017

5. The inability of Maya villages to prevent and address incursions into their lands is
undermining villagers' faith in the meaningfulness of this Court's rulings.

(b) Consultation
6. Since the parties' reports to the Court in January 2017, the Commission has met with the
Appellants two more times, in March 2017. This makes a total of only four times in the two and a
half years since the Consent Order was issued. On each of those four occasions, the Appellants
have performed all of the follow-up work agreed to and sent it to the Commission, while the
Commission has failed entirely to fulfil its own commitments arising from those meetings. Nor
has it responded to the Appellants work.

7. Furthermore, since January 2017, the Commission continues to deny that the Appellants
are the appropriate representatives of the Maya people for the purpose of consultation under that
Consent Order, and has made public statements to that effect, encouraging division among Maya
village leadership. For example, as recently as a training session by the Attorney General with the
Alcaldes on September 16, 2017, the Chair of the Commission asserted to the assembled Alcaldes
that it is their prerogative not to participate in the Toledo Alcaldes Association; an assertion that
went well outside the Commission’s mandate to implement the Consent Order and dismissed the
Maya people’s customary governance norms and structures in an overtly divisive manner. The
Commission’s persistent de-legitimization of the Appellants prevents meaningful consultation
with the Maya people.

(c) Implementation of the demarcation and documentation of Maya customary lands
8. Since January 2017, the Commission has again advised the Appellants that it would
develop a work plan and timeline for implementing the Consent Order, and provide it to the
Appellants for their input. To date, as far as the Appellants are aware, the Commission does not
yet have a work plan; certainly none has been communicated to the Appellants. This is a basic first
step in implementation, and suggests that either the Commission has been engaging in meetings
and actions without any direction, or it has developed a work plan unilaterally despite the GOB
Commitment and misled the Appellants concerning the existence of that plan.

9. Another initial step that has not been taken by the Commission, is to clarify whether it
intends to honor and incorporate the agreed upon nature of Maya customary land rights that the
Government of Belize confirmed in their Statement of Commitment. The Appellants have
provided the Commission with a description of what they understand the Consent Order to mean,
and have repeatedly asked the Commission to confirm whether there are any points of
disagreement, so that they can be discussed and hopefully resolved. The Commission will not
respond, although some of their comments at meetings and publicly suggest there may in fact be
some areas of disagreement.

10. Nor, to the best of the Appellants' knowledge, has the Commission made any tangible
progress toward developing a mechanism for demarcating and documenting Maya villages'
customary title lands. Certainly no information about any thoughts the Commission may have in
that direction have been communicated, much less discussed, with the Appellants.

BZCV2014/002 Page 11762 of 11765 10/09/2017
BZCV2014/002 Page 11763 of 11765 10/09/2017

11. The government appointed a Maya person to the Commission. It did so without any
consultation with the Appellants, and that member does not have any particular mandate to
represent a Maya perspective or Maya interests within the Commission. At this time, confidence
in the Commission's ability to engage in good faith consultation or to develop a mechanism that
will protect Maya lands is at a low point. If the Commission wishes to effectively incorporate a
Maya perspective that could restore confidence, the Appellants suggest that half of its members be
Maya individuals chosen from Maya elected leaders and nominated by the Appellants. This could
resolve the issues of poor communication and unilateral action immediately by incorporating the
required consultation right into the composition of the Commission itself. Failing that, mere
incorporation of individuals of Maya heritage does not ensure legitimacy or confidence in the
Commission’s ability to implement the Consent Order in good faith. Only meaningful, mutual
consultation in a context of open, respectful communication can do that.

II . Issues to be considered by the Court

12. The Appellants ask the Court to consider the following issues at the hearing:

(a) Does paragraph 4 require the Respondents to identify an individual or entity responsible
for ensuring the Respondents’ compliance with paragraph 4, and/or to establish a procedure
by which the Appellants may report situations that the Appellants believe violate or have
the potential to violate paragraph 4 and by which such situations are to be resolved?

(b) Has the consultation by the Respondents with the Appellants met the requirements of
paragraph 4 of the Consent Order?

(c) Are the actions of the Respondents toward compliance with paragraph 4 of the Consent
Order sufficient to satisfy the Court that this paragraph will be fully complied with in good
faith and in a timely manner? Do the parties require additional orders from the Court in
order to ensure timely fulfillment of the undertaking in paragraph 4?

(d) Does the accounting filed by the Respondents satisfy the Judgment of this Court with
respect to the award of damages?

(e) Does this Court see fit to make additional orders in exercise of its supervisory role over
compliance with the Consent Order and Judgment, to assist the parties and ensure that its
orders are complied with in good faith and in a timely manner? If so, are any of the
following orders sought by the Appellants, appropriate:

(i) that the Respondents name or identify the individual or entity responsible for
receiving information from the Appellants and/or individual Maya villages
regarding facts or events that may represent a breach of paragraph 4 of the Consent
Order, and communicate the identity and contact details of this individual or entity
to the Appellants by November 30, 2017;
(ii) that the Respondents provide to the Appellants a clear description of the process by
which the individual or entity identified in paragraph (a) will determine whether a

BZCV2014/002 Page 11763 of 11765 10/09/2017
BZCV2014/002 Page 11764 of 11765 10/09/2017

breach of paragraph 4 has taken place, what powers it has to remediate any such
breaches, and the timelines by which both the investigation and response will be
completed, by November 30, 2017;

(iii)that the Appellants provide their input, concerns, and suggestions regarding this
process to the individual or entity identified in paragraph (a) by January 15, 2018.

(iv) that if further clarity is required, that the Respondents, and/or the individual or
entity identified in paragraph (a) meet with the Appellants by February 15, 2018
with the objective to understand, and as much as is feasible, accommodate the input,
concerns, and suggestions of the Appellants.

(v) that the Respondents and/or the individual or entity identified in paragraph (a)
accommodate any concerns or suggestions raised and communicate in writing those
accommodations to the process or the reason for not adopting input or suggestions
from the Appellant by March 15, 2018.

(vi) that the Toledo Maya Land Rights Commission deliver a proposed work plan and
timetable for implementation of paragraph 3 of the Consent Order to the Appellants
by November 15, 2017.

(vii) that the Respondents' Toledo Maya Land Rights Commission review the
annotated Consent Order and other documents received from the Appellants
advising of the Appellants' understanding of the Consent Order, and communicate
to the Appellants whether the Commission has any difference of opinion to those
expressed by the Appellants concerning the meaning of the Consent Order and the
nature of the customary rights to be protected by December 15, 2017.

(viii) that the Toledo Maya Land Rights Commission meet with the Appellants by
January 30, 2018 to discuss and consult concerning the proposed work plan and
schedule, and respective positions concerning the order.

(a) that the Toledo Maya Land Rights Commission meet with and consult the
Appellants at least bi-monthly as the implementation process proceeds, and
either adopt or accommodate concerns and input raised by the Appellants or
provide written explanations as to why they are not being adopted or
accommodated. That the Appellants' transportation expenses and lodging, if
they are held outside of Toledo District, for participating in these meetings shall
be covered by the Respondents.

(b) that if the parties cannot resolve a dispute about the meaning or content of the
Consent Order, either party may apply to this Court for a hearing and definitive
interpretation of the point in dispute.
(ix) that the Respondents' accounting of the damages fund is not accepted as fulfilling
the requirements of the Judgment in this matter, and that the Respondents are
required to:

BZCV2014/002 Page 11764 of 11765 10/09/2017
BZCV2014/002 Page 11765 of 11765 10/09/2017

(a) set aside $300,000.00 in an account separate from the general revenue fund, and
specifically document and track the disbursements made from that account;

(b) develop, in consultation with the Appellants, a set of criteria that will govern
disbursements of the fund for the benefit of the Maya people in accordance with
the purpose of advancing the implementation of paragraph 3 of the Consent
Order

(c) base those criteria on the principle that the fund is to be directed to facilitating
the participation of the Appellants and Maya villages in the implementation
process, including consultations on the development of the demarcation
mechanism and participating in the demarcation and documentation process
itself.

(xiii) that the parties file further compliance reports with this Court by June 30, 2018.

DATED the 9th day of October, 2017.

Monica Coc Magnusson
Attorney-at-Law for and on behalf of the Appellants

This Compliance Report is being filed by Monica Coc Magnusson, VOA Road, Punta Gorda,
Belize, Attorney-at-Law for and on behalf of the Appellants, whose address for service is V.O.A.
Road, Punta Gorda Town, Belize C.A. Service may also be effected by email to the filing attorney
at: mcmag80@gmail.com

To: The Registrar of the Caribbean Court of Justice

And To: Mr. Nigel Hawke,
Solicitor General, Solicitor General’s Chambers
Attorney for the Respondent
2nd Floor, East Block Building, Attorney General’s Ministry
Independence Plaza, Belmopan City
Belize, C.A.

The Registry is located at: 134 Henry Street, Port of Spain, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
TELEPHONE Voice: 868-623-2225, 624-2256. Facsimile: 868-623-0527.

The Registry is open between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays except Public
Holidays and Court Holidays.

BZCV2014/002 Page 11765 of 11765 10/09/2017