Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation Landmark Ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

At the end of March 2025, international headlines were made by the news of a U.S. citizen who attempted to reach North Sentinel Island in the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago—located approximately 1,200 kilometers from mainland India—with the intention of making contact with its inhabitants.
Fortunately, he did not succeed, as he was intercepted by Indian authorities pursuant to a 1956 law that prohibits access to the island.
This incident served as a powerful reminder of the existence of approximately one hundred Indigenous peoples around the world who live in a state of voluntary isolation, avoiding contact with anyone outside their communities.
These are not “primitive” peoples but rather contemporary societies—further evidence of the planet’s cultural diversity—who maintain profound connections with nature and likely possess extensive knowledge in various fields, such as the medicinal uses of plants and animals.
These groups, typically consisting of a few dozen or at most a few hundred individuals, are located in diverse regions including the aforementioned islands in the Indian Ocean, as well as in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and most notably, the Amazon basin across Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela, and even the Paraguayan Chaco.
In northern California, USA, the Yahi people remained in voluntary isolation until 1911 and were subsequently referred to as “the last wild Indians” in that country.
In this context, the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights deserves special recognition for developing a legal and conceptual framework that acknowledges and protects the rights of these peoples.
While the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights already presents significant legal and practical challenges, the case of peoples in voluntary isolation is even more complex. Not only is there scarce information about them, but by definition, they do not appear in judicial proceedings, nor do they have representatives to advocate on their behalf.
On March 13, 2025, the Court publicly announced a decision rendered on September 4, 2024, in which it found the State of Ecuador internationally responsible for the violation of multiple rights of the Tagaeri and Taromenane peoples—as well as other Indigenous groups in voluntary isolation in the Ecuadorian Amazon—and of the rights of two Indigenous girls belonging to these communities.
The rights violated include collective land ownership, self-determination, a dignified life, health, food security, cultural identity, a healthy environment, housing, the right to life, and judicial guarantees and protections.
This marks the first time the Court has issued a ruling specifically addressing the scope of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation.
In its decision, the Court emphasized that the principle of non-contact and respect for these peoples’ decision to remain in isolation must serve as the foundation for any state intervention. International human rights standards demand that these choices be respected.
Accordingly, the so-called principle of conventionality—that is, adherence to international human rights obligations—requires that any measure concerning these peoples be evaluated in light of whether appropriate precautions were taken to prevent contact, and whether the State acted to prevent third parties from violating their right to remain isolated.
In the case at hand, Ecuador established the Tagaeri Taromenane Intangible Zone (ZITT) in 1999, designating it as a conservation area permanently closed to all extractive activities. However, effective demarcation of the zone did not occur until 2007. Notably, the area is rich in oil resources.
That same year, a proposed moratorium on oil exploitation in part of the ZITT was rejected. The Executive Branch then declared the area to be of national interest and assigned oil exploration rights to a state-owned company.
In 2023, a national referendum resulted in the public voting to indefinitely prohibit resource extraction in the area, leaving the oil reserves untapped.
Despite clear evidence of the presence of uncontacted Indigenous peoples, a private company operating in a neighboring area later sought authorization for oil exploration.
Throughout this lengthy process, multiple violent incidents occurred, particularly in 2003, 2006, and 2013, including direct attacks on Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation.
In its ruling, the Court affirmed that States are obligated to provide effective protection to these peoples, taking into account their specific circumstances, their heightened vulnerability, their customary laws, and their cultural values, practices, and traditions. Most importantly, States must guarantee their right to non-contact and to remain in isolation.
The ruling includes two additional points of significant legal relevance. First, the Court clarified that the right to self-determination does not relieve States of their responsibilities. On the contrary, the State’s obligations toward these peoples and their members remain in full force.
Second, while it may not be feasible to carry out free, prior, and informed consultation processes as required for other Indigenous peoples, the Court held that “…the duty of consultation must be understood as the obligation of the State to take into account their decision to remain in isolation in any project or decision that may affect them. This includes applying the precautionary principle and ensuring that adopted measures are proportionate, taking into account the nature of these peoples and the potential impact on their unique way of life.”
Additionally, the Court emphasized that the right of these peoples to territorial ownership requires States to formally delimit and declare such areas as intangible in their favor.
Beyond its specific application in this case, the judgment sets a crucial precedent and provides clear guidance to States seeking to fulfill their obligations in protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation—an endeavor that benefits not only these communities but society as a whole.