A/HRC/33/42 arguments made by States and investors and the space available for indigenous peoples’ participation and the ways in which international investment agreements can come into conflict with international human rights law. C. Examples of investor-State dispute settlements involving indigenous peoples’ rights 41. In the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes case Burlington Resources Inc. v. Ecuador (2010)10 the oil and gas company claimed that Ecuador had failed to meet its obligations to give its operations full protection and security against indigenous peoples’ opposition and at times violent protests. The State argued that the indigenous peoples’ actions had been a case of force majeure and did not address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights in its defence. The security aspect of the claim was rejected on procedural grounds without addressing the indigenous rights issues. The case was also subject to parallel consideration by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights . In 2012, the Court ruled that the failure to consult the indigenous peoples and obtain their free, prior and informed consent, and the use of force by the State, had put the indigenous peoples’ survival at risk. 11 42. In Chevron v. Ecuador (2014), the company took a series of arbitration cases to avoid paying damages awarded by Ecuadorian courts in 2011. The $8.6 billion award followed a class action suit addressing harms suffered by indigenous peoples as a result of environmental contamination. The case demonstrates the extremely broad and potentially indigenous rights-denying interpretation of “investment” as including a lawsuit in domestic courts and payments to affected people arising from the lack of remediation. Precautionary measures were subsequently sought from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seeking to prevent any action arising from the investor-State dispute settlement award that would contravene, undermine, or threaten the human rights of the concerned indigenous communities. 43. In Von Pezold and Border Timbers v. Zimbabwe (2015), the company claimed expropriation under the bilateral investment treaties between Germany and Zimbabwe and between Switzerland and Zimbabwe in the context of the State’s taking of land. Four indigenous communities, whose traditional lands were the subject of proceedings, submitted an amicus submission claiming that the State and the company had human rights obligations towards them. In its preliminary order of June 2012, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes tribunal acknowledged their claims to the lands and that its determinations may well have an impact on the interests of the indigenous communities. However, the tribunal rejected their amicus submission on the grounds that: (a) the communities and their chiefs lacked “independence”, as they were associated with people affiliated to the Government, and therefore the claimants may be unfairly prejudiced by their participation; (b) it was not in a position to decide if they were indigenous or not and lacked the competence to interpret indigenous peoples’ rights; (c) it was not persuaded that consideration of international human rights law obligations, including, article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was part of its mandate, and rules of general international law did not necessarily extend to international human rights law; and (d) neither the State nor the company had raised indigenous rights issues. It concluded that the putative rights of the indigenous communities as “indigenous peoples” under international human rights law was a matter outside of the scope of the dispute. 10 11 10 Burlington Resources Inc. v. Ecuador Decision on Jurisdiction (2010). Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2012).