Ensuring Accountability: Argentina

The same year, the Provincial Ministry of Health sent an official document to the Health Minister, expressing concern and suggesting government action to provide access to safe water for the community.

There was considerable evidence before the courts that the Government of Neuquén had known about the pollution of the water and its unsuitability for consumption. In its defence, the Government alleged that it had taken certain measures as a result of this information, such as initiating studies into the causes and type of pollution.

The court found in favour of the Children's Public Defender. The government then applied to the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal confirmed the previous ruling, finding in favour of the Children’s Public Defender. The court considered that the state had failed to act upon the information before it in a manner befitting the seriousness and urgency of the situation. This was found to constitute an arbitrary omission of the Government’s responsibility, violating the right to health and the environment.

The Court sustained the amparo protection and required the Provincial Executive Authority to:

I) supply 250 litres fresh water daily per inhabitant within 2 days of the decision

II) ensure the supply of drinking water by any appropriate means within 45 days of the decision

III) start the necessary actions to determine if there were damages to the health of the inhabitants caused by heavy metal contamination, and if so, it should undertake the necessary actions for their treatment

IV) take the necessary measures to assure the preservation of the environment from the pollution derived from the hydrocarbon and gas exploitation.

Since this case was brought, the Government has been providing free barrels of mineral water to the community every week, and the construction of a water purification plant is planned. However, the building of this plant has been continually delayed and the Government has failed to fulfil any of the other measures required: the children affected have not been treated, and no measure has been taken to restore or protect the environment.

As a result, the Children’s Public Defender has presented the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing a breach of Articles 4 (right to life), 8 and 25 (effective judicial protection), and 19 (children’s rights) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights by the Government. (Source: COHRE’s Guide to Legal sources).