On 3 July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) handed down its Advisory Opinion (AO) on the climate emergency and human rights. The 300 page document comes just over two years after the AO was requested by Colombia and Chile on 9 January 2023. The proceedings were the largest in the history of the Court, receiving a record number of interventions. ISHR intervened through 4 separate amicus briefs, led, respectively, by partners CIEL, RFK Human Rights, CEJIL and ALLIED. All of the amici focused on the protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs). 

After a detailed analysis on the causes and effects of climate change, the IACrtHR delves deeply into its impact on human rights and the measures States must take to prevent, protect and guarantee these rights in the region. 

Environmental human rights defenders

The Court reaffirmed the autonomous nature of the right to defend rights, including environmental rights, as well as the essential role EHRDs play in combating the climate emergency. It explicitly recognises the role and differentiated impact that certain EHRDs face, including Indigenous Peoples, youth, women and LGBTI EHRDs. 

The Court mostly restates its own jurisprudence on the rights of HRDs, calling on States to facilitate and encourage human rights defence work and refrain from hindering it. It also repeatedly cited the Escazú Agreement, the first international treaty in history to contain a provision which explicitly contemplates EHRDs. 

In terms of enabling the work of defenders, the Court acknowledges the inherent link between democracy, civic space, public participation and the protection of the environment, calling on States to strengthen the rule of law, and empower citizens through environmental education and support for civil society and other groups which help mitigate the deficiencies of environmental governance.

In terms of not hindering the work of defenders, the Court reminds States that they must refrain from censoring debates on the environment and climate change, criminalising or repressing protests, and engaging in or allowing strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). 

The Court also notes that the lack of sufficient measures to combat and mitigate climate change has resulted in EHRDs intensifying their labour and taking more urgent and direct actions, which has been met with violence and criminalisation by the State. While it affirmed existing standards on the prohibition of criminalisation and stigmatisation, the Court, regrettably, did not take the further step, advocated by ISHR and others, to explicitly recognise civil disobedience as a legitimate exercise of the right to protest in the context of defending human rights. 

However, a very positive aspect is that the Court dedicated several pages of its AO to a set of rights which are indispensable for EHRDs: “environmental access rights”, also known as “procedural rights”. These are named as such given that they relate to legal processes, in particular, those related to decision-making in environmental matters. These rights include access to climate information, participation in environmental policy-making and access to environmental justice. 

On access to climate information, the Court calls on States to ensure publicity and transparency, so that any person can exert democratic / social control of the actions taken by the State to combat the climate emergency, in order to question and evaluate them. The IACrtHR recognised that climate information is of public interest, and provided examples of what kind of information should be shared by States, these include: environmental impact assessments and access to the best available science on climate change. It also calls on them to properly regulate mass media and social media, to combat climate disinformation. 

On public participation, it called on States to ensure the widest possible involvement of the public in decision making processes related to climate change, including, for example, by guaranteeing the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples.

With regards to access to justice, the Court emphasises the importance of climate litigation and calls on national courts to adjudicate cases on the right to the environment. It also calls on States to develop mechanisms to allow for various types of climate-related litigation, facilitating access to justice for collectives, Indigenous Peoples and children, among others.

Other developments

Another extraordinary aspect of the AO is its recognition of the complex and multifaceted link between the climate emergency and other human rights. For example, it recognises: 

• The differentiated impact that climate change has on the human rights of particularly vulnerable groups, including Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities. 
• That nature should be considered an autonomous subject of law, with its own legal personality, independent of its relationship and benefits to humans.
• The principle of “intergenerational equality”, by which current generations are mandated to ensure stable environmental conditions which will allow future generations similar development opportunities. 
• The responsibility of companies and the due diligence standard in the context of the climate emergency. Among other things, the Court calls on States to prevent “greenwashing“, the undue influence of businesses in relevant policy-making, and to support the work of EHRDs who work on these issues. It also explicitly notes that States should strive, as a good practice, for full compliance with the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

ISHR’s Javier Urizar, who represented ISHR in the hearings for this Advisory Opinion before the Inter-American Court, concluded: “This is an incredibly valuable opinion, setting the standard for the region and the world on how to deal with the climate crisis from a human rights perspective. We are thrilled that the Court has recognised that any environmental policy must consider environmental defenders and promote their right to defend rights“.