Canaquiri Murayari et al. v. Petroperú S.A. et al. (Marañón River Case)

On September 15, 2021, Mariluz Canaquiri Murayari and other Kukama Indigenous women, associated with the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana Federation, filed a constitutional amparo action against Petróleos del Perú – Petroperú S.A. and several Peruvian national and regional government authorities. Plaintiffs alleged that recurrent oil spills from the Norperuvian Oil Pipeline and deficiencies in its maintenance and environmental management threatened the Marañón River, surrounding ecosystems, and the fundamental and collective rights of Kukama communities that depend on and maintain cultural and spiritual relationships with the river.
Plaintiffs sought recognition of the Marañón River and its tributaries as rights-holders; recognition of Indigenous organizations and state authorities as guardians, defenders, and representatives of the river; Indigenous participation with decision-making capacity in river-basin governance; effective maintenance of the Norperuvian Oil Pipeline; and an updated environmental management instrument.

In supporting an ecocentric interpretation of the right to a healthy environment and the recognition of Rights of Nature, Plaintiffs relied on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights's OC-23/17 concerning the relationship between environmental degradation, the adverse effects of climate change, and the effective enjoyment of human rights. They also referred to comparative Rights of Nature developments, including recognition of a right to a healthy climate in the U.S.

On March 8, 2024, Judge Armas Chapiama Corley of the Mixed Court of Nauta partially granted the action. The court recognized the Marañón River and its tributaries as rights-holders and ordered measures concerning their guardianship and representation, Indigenous participation in river-basin governance, and the updating of Petroperú's environmental management instrument. In interpreting the right to a healthy environment and the intrinsic value of nature as a component of that right, the court relied on Inter-American human rights jurisprudence, including Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 and Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina. In particular, it drew on the relationship between environmental degradation, the adverse effects of climate change, and the enjoyment of human rights, as well as the autonomous protection of the environment. However, the court rejected Plaintiffs' request for an order requiring maintenance of the Norperuvian Oil Pipeline.

The first-instance judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs, Petroperú, and government defendants, who challenged different aspects of the ruling. Among other issues, Plaintiffs challenged the court's rejection of their request for an order requiring maintenance of the Norperuvian Oil Pipeline, while Defendants challenged aspects of the orders concerning the river's guardianship and representation, river-basin governance, and Petroperú's environmental management obligations.

On August 29, 2024, the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Loreto issued its appellate decision, confirming the principal elements of the first-instance judgment. The appellate court further developed the environmental and climate-related reasoning, describing the right to a healthy environment as encompassing clean air, a stable climate, thriving biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems. It also referred to the Paris Agreement, Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si', and Peru's National Environmental Policy to 2030, including its objectives of reducing vulnerability to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The court confirmed the recognition of the Marañón River and its tributaries as rights-holders, specifying that their recognized rights concern their protection, conservation, maintenance, and sustainable use.