The Brumadinho Disaster

On 25 January 2019, the rupture of a dam in Brumadinho unleashed a “torrent” of mining waste, destroying homes, contaminating the Paraopeba River, and killing 270 people. The dam was owned by the mining company Vale and its safety audited by the German TÜV Süd. More than five years later, no one has been held accountable. However, the Brazilian Federal Court of Justice accepted the charges brought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against 16 individuals and the companies Vale and TÜV Süd on 24 January 2023.

Latin America has a history of dam failures, especially Brazil, where in 2015 the Fundão Dam collapsed in the city of Mariana. Like in Brumadinho, the victims of Mariana are still waiting for reparations, demonstrating a pattern of unaddressed human rights violations in Brazil. These failures demand the attention of the Inter-American Human Rights System (SIDH) to address ongoing violations and protect communities from future environmental and human rights disasters.

Despite the severe damages caused, the victims’ families are still being neglected. The impact was so significant that authorities still recommend against using untreated water from the Paraopeba River between the cities of Brumadinho and Pompéu.

The situation is further aggravated by the fact that, despite knowing about the dam’s problems, the consulting firm TÜV Süd issued Stability Condition Declarations which authorized its operation even outside international safety standards. The aftermath of this negligence is still unfolding, affecting the life and land in Brumadinho.

Inter-American standards

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has established that states cannot be held responsible for every human rights violation committed by individuals within their territory. Nonetheless, the state has a duty to regulate, supervise, and oversee hazardous activities (see IACHR, Employees of the Santo Antônio de Jesus Fireworks Factory vs. Brazil, paras. 117-118). In particular, states may be held responsible if they knew or should have known about the risk situation and remained inactive (see IACHR, Workers of the Brasil Verde Farm vs. Brazil, paras. 323-324).

The IACHR has also emphasized that states must provide adequate protections that ensure the safety, health, and hygiene of workers in Brazil, especially when the work involves increased risk exposure. In Employees of the Santo Antônio de Jesus Fireworks Factory vs. Brazil, the IACHR held that the Brazilian state is under an obligation to ensure that workers can perform their jobs safely. States also have to ensure the conditions necessary for the full enjoyment and exercise of the right to life (see IACHR, Villagrán Morales and others vs. Guatemala, para. 144). One of these conditions is sufficient and safe access to water, food, and health, taking into account the special vulnerability of the affected populations (IACHR, Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay, para. 163).

Given these precedents, the Brazilian state as well as the companies Vale and TÜV Süd may be considered responsible for the deaths in this case. The responsibility of the Brazilian state is supported by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights which outline a duty to protect human rights against abuses by third parties, including businesses.

Environmental and social reparations

The Paraopeba was a vital source for fishing, food, navigation, recreation, and tourism that generated income for the population and also holds cultural and religious value for traditional peoples. However, the distribution of funds allocated for the recovery of the Paraopeba River remains opaque. Researchers and environmentalists in Minas Gerais criticise the lack of transparency from Vale as well as controversial investments of the R$37 billion in compensation agreed upon in court by the governor.

Given the ongoing severe contamination of the Paraopeba River, it can be argued that the Brazilian state continues to systematically violate human rights related to the dignified life of the population.

The damages are severe. 297 hectares of Atlantic Forest were destroyed, with the released water damaging local flora and fauna, and the indigenous peoples of the Nao Xohã tribe were severely affected. In this regard, the IACHR aptly highlighted in Moiwana Community vs. Suriname (para. 131) that indigenous peoples, by virtue of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territories; the close relationship they maintain with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival.

Since indigenous peoples as well as riverside populations continue to suffer the consequences of the disaster to this day, full and adequate reparations cannot be reduced to the payment of compensation to victims or their families (cf. Herrera Espinoza and others vs. Ecuador, para. 214).

Full reparations require restoring the status quo ante and eliminating the effects caused by the violation, in addition to compensatory payment for both material and immaterial damages caused (see IACHR, González and others vs. Mexico, para. 450). Reparations could include monitoring the respect of international labor protection standards, acknowledging responsibility, the technical training of those responsible for dam safety, investigation, determination, judgment, and punishment of those responsible.

Conclusion

According to international human rights standards, the Brazilian state must hold companies accountable for not respecting human rights, and ensure that they fully repair any and all damages caused. This duty goes beyond mere economic reparations since the consequences are still affecting the dignified life and livelihood of many – not only of the families who lost their loved ones, but also of those who depended on the Paraopeba River, which remains unusable.