Enéas Xavier de Oliveira Jr., lawyer, Ph.D. candidate in international environmental law at the Université de Montréal, researcher at NETI-USP (Centre for the Study of International Courts at the University of São Paulo Law School) and at the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the State University of Amazonas.
Do You Know What SLAPP Means?
The worsening climate crisis has elevated the role of environmental defenders as key actors in monitoring public policies, exposing irregularities, and demanding socio-environmental justice. Yet, this vital work is increasingly met with repression through abusive legal actions and institutional intimidation. Among the tools used to silence critical voices and delegitimize environmental advocacy, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) stand out. These lawsuits are not aimed at legitimate legal redress but rather at intimidating, demobilizing, and punishing those who exercise their right to speak out — particularly in contexts involving environmental and climate protection.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has responded decisively to this form of persecution, reinforcing the foundational role of freedom of expression and the right to public participation in democratic societies. A landmark decision in this regard is the Baraona Bray v. Chile (2022) case, where the Court found the Chilean State internationally responsible for the wrongful criminalization of Carlos Baraona Bray — a lawyer and environmental defender who, during public interviews, denounced the possible involvement of a Chilean senator in the illegal logging of alerce trees, a protected species and emblem of local biodiversity. The Court ruled that using criminal law to suppress his speech was disproportionate and emphasized that freedom of expression on environmental issues enjoys enhanced protection under the American Convention, particularly because such matters concern the global public interest, including climate change.
The Court held that Chile violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), the principle of legality (Article 9), and the right to judicial protection (Article 25) under the American Convention on Human Rights. It further recommended legislative reforms and non-repetition measures. This decision aligns with the principles of the Escazú Agreement and affirms that criticism of environmental policies or the reporting of ecological degradation cannot be criminalized as “insult” or “defamation,” especially when raised by environmental defenders acting on the basis of evidence.
These issues are further explored in the article “Participation Rights as Mechanisms for Advancing Justice and Climate Litigation,” which proposes a justice-centered approach to climate action that includes procedural safeguards for social actors engaged in environmental advocacy. The authors argue that addressing the climate crisis requires the strengthening of access rights — to information, to justice, and to participation in decision-making — as tools for democratizing climate governance. Vulnerable populations, such as Indigenous peoples and traditional communities, depend on the free and unhindered work of environmental defenders to safeguard their rights. The criminalization of these defenders — including through SLAPPs — represents an unacceptable setback and undermines the effectiveness of international commitments made under the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.
One such example is the case of Enéas Xavier de Oliveira Junior, a lawyer and representative of the Instituto Aimara, who became a target of SLAPP practices in Brazil. In 2013, acting in his professional capacity as a human rights and climate defender, he submitted a formal complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding environmental damage within a protected conservation area essential for water regulation and microclimatic stability. However, rather than investigating the reported harm, the State turned its attention to the whistleblower himself: a police inquiry was opened against the lawyer, accusing him of false reporting (denunciação caluniosa). This occurred despite the absence of any criminal accusation against a specific individual and the submission of technical evidence documenting illegal earthworks, vegetation clearance, and the burial of natural springs. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, rather than acting on the complaint, reversed the roles — transforming a legitimate defender into a suspect in an apparent case of judicial retaliation.
This case was examined in habeas corpus no. 2153734-78.2016.8.26.0000 by the 14th Criminal Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice, which found no legal grounds for the investigation and ordered its dismissal. The court held that the lawyer had merely exercised his constitutional right to petition the State, relying on strong photographic evidence and that his concerns were later confirmed by technical assessments. The judges concluded that the conduct in question did not meet the elements of a criminal offense, particularly the requirement of intent to falsely accuse. The decision reaffirmed the legitimacy of citizen participation in environmental defense and provided legal protection for the professional prerogatives of environmental and climate human rights defenders.
To access the ruling, click the LINK.
Environmental and climate advocacy is an essential tool for realizing the human rights of present and future generations. It is fundamentally incompatible with any form of persecution or retaliation, whether by State authorities or private actors. The right to an ecologically balanced environment, enshrined in Article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, is an intergenerational right and must be protected in conjunction with Article 5, item XXXIV(a), which guarantees the right to petition public authorities. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights explicitly recognizes lawyers as environmental human rights defenders (Baraona Bray v. Chile, §§ 70–71). As such, they must be protected by the State against all forms of harassment or intimidation. Respect for the legal profession is a cornerstone of democracy, environmental protection, and climate stability.
This Brazilian case, alongside the Inter-American Court’s precedent, underscores the urgent need to establish robust mechanisms for protecting environmental and climate defenders, who are on the front lines of ecological justice. Combating SLAPPs and advancing access rights are indispensable conditions for ensuring that climate action is legitimate, equitable, and genuinely transformative.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário