Copiapo Court Case: Lithium Tender

So I have been reading the court documents of the Copiapo case related to the lithium tender. Im not a lawyer or a Chilean lawyer so take my words with salt. Today 3/26/22 the appellants (miguel vargas and the colla people) released a report following the reports that the defense (minister of mining represented by the state defense) has filed. Given the time that this case as been processing without recent delays for about 20 business days or 4 weeks. Along with the timing, and context of the recent report filings. I think there is a high likely hood that we at-least see a response, and hopefully rejection, from the court Monday or Tuesday

The report filed today was very long winded about the colla people and their livelihood. I wont bother you with the first part of the report but here is the interesting parts at the end of the report.

Given that the indigenous consultation was incorporated directly into our legal system, its origin is determined on a case-by-case basis, as long as two requirements are copulatively configuredthat we will review i) that there is an “administrative or legislative measure” and ii) that said measure is “likely to directly affect” the indigenous peoples, this being the material cause of origin of the right to consultation.In this case, since it is public knowledge that the lithium projects occupy the salt flats in the north of our country, necessarily, to extract brine, it is that there is a susceptibility to affect the community that I represent, for the reasons that have already been indicated, which merits the need to carry out an Indigenous Consultation Process.The Indigenous Consultation Process has nothing to do with a possible environmental impact assessmentThe authority confuses the need to carry out an Indigenous Consultation process at this stage, with the possible Consultation that is carried out regarding an environmental evaluation of futureprojects, a confusion that is reflected in considering paragraph 54 of the report presented by the respondent.

54. In this order of argument, once each CEOL can be signed with those awarded,
such agreements, with all their antecedents, must be sent for prior control of legality,
in accordance with the provisions of numeral 14.2 of Resolution No. 7, of
2019, of the Comptroller General of the Republic. Once these are taken to reason,
the contractor must enter the mining project into the Environmental Impact Assessment System,
where, in said Case, it must process, in addition to the Environmental Qualification Resolution ("RCA"),
various sectoral environmental permits ("PAS"), depending on the location and effects that
could generate the project. Thus, for example, permission to

As can be seen, the respondent confuses the need to carry out an Indigenous Consultation process with a possible Consultation within the framework of an Environmental Assessment. The indigenous Consultation that is carried out in the context of an environmental evaluation, has to do with the possible impacts on the ecosystem inhabited by the indigenous communities and on their customs of life in relation to said ecosystem, with respect to a specific project and with respect to the scope environment of that project.What is being requested here has nothing to do with the environmental evaluation of future projects in question, but rather with the need for the indigenous communities to participate in the decisions regarding the conditions in which the State is deciding what to do. exploit lithium in our country, since this exploitation is going to affect them, because it is always carried out in the salt flats that are part of the territory of the Colla Indigenous Communities, among others. These conditions regarding how these contracts will be developed (not extractive projects in an environmental analysis), will have direct repercussions on the ancestral territory of the Colla people.In other words, the communities have the right to be consulted about the conditions established in general for the exploitation of lithium that will be carried out in the salt flats of northern Chile, taking into account that these conditions imply economic matters and that they are not considering some such as cultural aspects that are important to communities, independent of future environmental assessments of specific projects, which will have other implications.SO; By virtue of the provisions of articles 6, 7 and 15 of ILO Convention 169, article 19 No. 2 of the Political Constitution of the Republic and other pertinent regulations,To SS ILTMA, I REQUEST: Agree to the request and have my clients represent as an independent third party in court and, ultimately, order that an Indigenous Consultation Process be carried out regarding the Bidding process in question, considering the communities likely to be affected, who live around the Salares indicated in the body of this writing. In subsidy, I request to have this party as a third party intervener of the appellant.FIRST OTHER: ELENA DE LOURDES RIVERA CARDOZO, national identity card No. 13.422.710-9, domiciled at psje Mulchen #6567 Esta. Paipote, Copiapo, Atacama region, in my name and on behalf of the Colla Indigenous Community of Copiapé, I hereby designate as sponsoring attorney and empower Ms. SABINE MAITANE SUSAETA HERRERA, attorney authorized to practice the profession, national ID ID No. 16.662.281-6, domiciled at Avenida Peru 981 apartment 1105, Recoleta district, Metropolitan Region; to represent me in these proceedings, with the powers indicated in both subsections of article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.THEREFORE, to SS Iltma, I request to keep it in mind.SECOND ADDITION: I request that the identity card of the sponsoring attorney be accompanied.

The appellant is asking that the court force consultation with the involved parties relating to the tender in question. This is a pretty bold move for a protection appeal because generally the court is limited to being only allowed to accept or reject any protection appeal. Beyond that the request to the court is additionally bold because it would mean that the court would have to deem the tender illegal on the grounds of lack of indigenous consultation, and therefore this would suggest that if the court made this judgement then why would they not simply accept the appeal and suspend the tender. Furthermore the precedent that this might set by deeming a tender illegal before it has caused any measurable illegal actions might invite court cases for protection when no harm has been done but before crimes might/might-not occur. This seems like it would be a impossible situation to encourage in the perspective the court.

Anyways that is my take on the recent developments. Come Monday or Tuesday there should be a response from the judge and I will let you know what happens, but I am speculating that this is the final death throws of this court case and it will be rejected early next week. HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND ALL. GLHF