José Noé Mendoza Bohórquez et al. v. Department of Arauca et al. (climate-induced migration as forced displacement)

In 2021, two individuals (José Noé Mendoza Bohórquez and Ana Librada Niño de Mendoza) filed an amparo mechanism against the Department of Arauca, the Municipality of Saravena, the Administrative Department for Social Prosperity, the National System for Disaster Prevention and Attention, the Unit for Victims’ Comprehensive Attention and Reparation and the Office of the Ombudsman. The plaintiffs are 66 and 63 years old respectively and are campesinos that were forced to leave their land where they lived and worked, because of the 2015 and 2016 floodings of the river Bojabá. Since then, the plaintiffs have not been able to return. Due to the dire situation of Colombia’s internal forced displacement in the context of the armed conflict, in 2011 the Congress issued Law 1448 to provide assistance to all victims of forced displacement. Among the provisions, the Law establishes a series of benefits and programs to aid victims in relocating. The plaintiffs argued that they must be accorded victim status even if their displacement was induced by natural disasters and not the armed conflict. The plaintiffs consider that both victims of forced displacement by natural disasters and armed conflict are in a special vulnerable situation and should be treated equally. The plaintiffs sought to invoke their rights to housing, work, food security, and minimum wage, as well as life and personal safety. On April 16, 2024, the Constitutional Court conducted judicial review and decided that environment and climate-induced migration is indeed a cause of internal forced displacement. The Court found that the plaintiffs had left their houses due to a natural disaster and as such, are subject to a special protection by the Colombian government. However, the Court stated that this status is not covered by existing laws, including Law 1448 of 2011, since these provisions concern victims of displacement due to the armed conflict. As a result, the Court found that there is a legal vacuum when it comes to the special protection of environment and climate-induced forced displacement and ordered the Congress to issue the necessary legislation to fill it. That being said, the Court further concluded that the lack of specific provisions is no excuse for environmental authorities to provide the necessary protection to victims of environment and climate-induced migration in accordance with constitutional and international standards on forced migration. Despite the lack of specific regulation, the Court said that environmental authorities must guarantee victims’ rights and provide attention and assistance that goes beyond the immediate consequences of the forced displacement and aims towards stabilizing the victims’ situation.