CCJ monitoring hearing for the Maya Land Rights case
BELIZE CITY, Friday, July 25, 2025
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today held a monitoring hearing for the Maya Land Rights case. The Court is winding down its role in overseeing the process of implementation of the April 2015 Consent Order in the landmark case. The deadline the Court has set for conclusion is October 2025. At today’s monitoring hearing there were indications of progress but also persistent challenges and delays. In fact, for the first time, the appellants informed the Court that they may consider further legal action in the case.
Notably, observers from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) were invited to attend today’s monitoring hearing.
New minister, new direction
Among the positive developments that he acknowledged, CCJ president Hon. Winston Anderson welcomed the active engagement of newly appointed Indigenous Peoples Affairs Minister Dr. Louis Zabaneh and CEO Chester Williams. Since being assigned the portfolio in March this year, the Minister held meetings with both the appellants and met third-party landowners on July 16. He shared that about 40 landowners and community leaders attended and that the meeting went well. Also, government’s lead attorney in the case, Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck, reported that, at the appellants’ request, the Minister has agreed to take another look at the methodology to be used to identify customary Maya land.
The appellants have stated that they are at odds with the Government regarding the draft Maya Customary Land Tenure Policy. Based on the new direction set by the Minister, Marshalleck says that previously agreed deadlines, including reaching the stage of legislation, have to be pushed back. A timeline has been presented that sets the end of August as the deadline for Cabinet to have approved any new policy. Thereafter, they can move to the stage of drafting the legislation. The appellants also had a recent meeting with the relevant Cabinet sub-committee and have requested to meet again with the group of ministers after Cabinet approves the draft. Another monitoring hearing is set for September 18, at which time the Court will notify the parties about its continued accompaniment in the implementation process.
Methodology dispute remains unresolved
According to attorney Leslie Mendez, who represents the Maya Leaders Alliance, the Toledo Alcaldes Association and the 24 Maya villages of the Toledo District which are a part of the claim, the Government’s proposed formula allocates a fixed, automatic area to be recognized per village based on population size, after which proof of occupation for 30 years is required to claim more land. Mendez reiterated that this approach is inconsistent with international standards and the spirit of the consent order, as it contemplates an adjudicative process rather than recognizing existing customary use. Marshalleck affirmed that while they accept there should be auto-delimitation, it has to be with limitations. “It can’t be that it goes far and wide wherever they wish to claim it … it’s based on possession and actual occupation,” he declared. Mendez rebutted that to require proof of undisturbed possession and occupation of the land for 30 years is a burden and is not in line with the decisions of the domestic courts and international standards.
As to whether there was any progress in recent meetings with high-level government officials, Mendez reported that in the meeting with Minister Zabaneh, they merely set out the methodology that was outlined in the Delimitation Principles and Methodology (DPM) document which was previously agreed upon with a UDP administration and invited him to accept where there is room for improvement, especially where bottlenecks have emerged. She emphasized that it is a village-led process that abides by international standards. The government would subsequently go in and verify the demarcation.
Mendez did note that in the recent meeting with the Cabinet sub-committee, there were no concrete decisions, but they, the appellants, walked away with the sense that “there were positive indications that we are being heard, and that the logic of the DPM is being taken into account, and that there is a genuine concern for us to get to some mutually agreeable point.”
Mendez reported that currently, 34 of 41 villages are engaged in the delimitation exercise but some have run into bottlenecks which the Appellants say require government intervention to resolve. If that occurs, Mendez says the delimitation could conclude by October but would then require verification by the Government, who, she notes, would prefer to do that exercise after all villages have completed the delimitation. Mendez did report that some villages will decline the implementation of Maya customary land tenure.
Forest reserves and national parks are a point of contention
Another legal flashpoint in the recognition of customary Maya land concerns the treatment of Maya customary rights within protected areas. The current draft policy excludes full recognition of these rights in national parks and reserves, offering only limited-use rights such as subsistence extraction, without management authority. Marshalleck clarified that while full tenure rights would not be recognized, indigenous communities would be granted special access not afforded to the general public. However, Mendez emphasized that this exclusion contradicts both domestic case law and international standards “that do not, in fact, hold that creation of a protected area, in and of itself, extinguishes Maya customary land use over those areas.” Mendez expressed concern about the right to manage and control the areas as opposed to others making the decisions. She then reported that they have indicated to the Government that “perhaps it would require litigation on this point.”
How will third-party land rights be addressed?
According to previous reports, there are over 8,000 third-party land owners within the areas claimed as customary Maya land. Under the current framework, third-party rights within the initial automatically recognized areas would be extinguished and the land owners would have to be compensated by the government. However, the appellants have raised concerns about how third-party rights outside that initial area will be decided. Those who can prove 30-year ownership of the land will have rights to it, whether those persons/entities are third-party landowners or the indigenous people. Mendez emphasized their position that each claim be determined on a case by case basis but insists that the potential value of the land be taken into consideration. For instance, she noted that the land may have spiritual value, may be very near to the only water resource for a particular village, and the third party may not have been willing to maintain a peaceful relationship with the village.
The appellants have proposed the establishment of a tribunal to adjudicate such claims.
Encroachment in Golden Stream Village prompts government action
During the hearing, one complaint regarding the unauthorized clearing of land in Golden Stream Village was addressed. The court-appointed authority, Professor Rosa Celorio, reported receiving the complaint in February 2025, detailing third-party activity that began in December 2024. Allegations included trespassing, destruction of property, and clearing of approximately 7,000 acres of Maya customary land.
In response, the government issued a cease and desist order on June 24 and confirmed that no permits had been granted prior to the activity. A site inspection by government officials revealed that 25 acres had been cleared, and the developer was directed to initiate the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) process with the village.
Mendez welcomed the halt in activity but emphasized the need for stronger awareness and enforcement of FPIC protocols. “We raised this issue before the clearing began,” she noted, and called for better education within state agencies themselves.
The court acknowledged the resolution as a positive development. Other logging concerns are being monitored, but Golden Stream remains the only active encroachment case before the court.
