• Supreme Court reviews case after 50 years of dispossession
• Tila “ejidatarios” (communal land-holders) have expressed their rejection of the possibility of substituting money for their land

Today, Mexico’s Supreme Court decided to postpone the discussion of the Tila case (incidente de inejecución 1302/2010). Justice Olga Sánchez Cordero withdrew the Tila case from the list of cases that were to be discussed, at the request of the rest of the members of the Plenary, who considered that the case is extremely “complex and sensitive” and requires further analysis.  

The Tila peasants, who belong to the indigenous ch’ol community, have resisted for over 50 years the attempts to strip them of 130 hectares of land. Over the years they have struggled to defend their rights through the courts and through peaceful resistance.

In 2008 the First District Judge in the state of Chiapas granted “amparo”, or legal relief, to the Tila indigenous peasants and ordered the cancellation of the parceling of land that would have resulted from the execution of state Congress Decree no. 72. Additionally, the Federal Judge ordered the restitution of the 130 hectares to the Tila “ejidatarios”. The scope of this decision was originally going to be discussed today by the Supreme Court.

In relation to what was expressed by the Justices, it is important to highlight that stating that “the ‘ejido’ was not affected by Decree no. 72, which sought to regulate a pre-existing situation” is incorrect. On the contrary, the Decree has served to protect illegal acts of dispossession. If the “ejido” lands’ situation has changed since then, this is due to the subsequent granting of illegal ownership titles, for which the courts are responsible in light of their delay in the delivery of justice.

It is also important to note that the case reached the Supreme Court due to the authorities’ failure to comply with the amparo judgment, and not for any decision on monetary compensation. The Constitution states that the highest court must ensure the fulfillment of amparo judgments, including through criminal and administrative liability proceedings. The Supreme Court can only order an indemnization as a substitute for compliance if a formal declaration of non-compliance is issued, which has not happened.

The Tila indigenous peasants have expressed their rejection of a monetary payment, as it would translate into the non-fulfillment of the judgment, the legalization of the acts of dispossession carried out by multiple state authorities and an attempt to solve economically (through compensation) a situation that is illegal and unfair. Far from strengthening the Rule of Law, the decision to pay the community for having its lands taken illegally would only encourage authorities’ illegal and arbitrary acts.

The lands corresponding to the Tila “ejido” have been historically and traditionally inhabited by the ch’ol indigenous people, who cannot conceive that their land will be transformed into a commodity for which they will receive a certain amount of money.

Today, before the discussion of the case was postponed, some of the Justices expressed that it was necessary to define whether the case has to do with indigenous or with agrarian matters. However, it is important to highlight that being indigenous and being an “ejidatario” peasant is not self-excluding. Both identities can coexist. Far from being self-excluding, the “ejido” social property regime is broadened by the rights that have been recognized to indigenous peoples.

The Tila case is unprecedented in Mexico. It is the first time that the Supreme Court of Justice will define the content of indigenous peoples’ right to land. We will be awaiting the final decision with high expectation.