The Mexican Supreme Court (SCJN) on Wednesday ordered an unpublished ruling to revoke two mining concessions to Canada’s Almaden Minerals in the center of the country following a complaint by the indigenous Nahua peoples of Tecoltemi, in the central state of Puebla.

The five upper house ministers ruled in favor of the Ejidal Commissariat and the Nahua Indigenous Community of Tecoltemi because there was no prior consultation based on Article 2 of the Constitution and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) on indigenous villages.

“This Senate determines that it is appropriate to order the Ministry of Economic Affairs, through its General Directorate of Mining Ordinance, to leave the titles of mining concessions unfounded,” read the verdict prepared by Minister Jorge Pardo Rebolledo.

The concessions were granted in 2003 and 2009 to Minera Gorrión, a subsidiary of Almaden Minerals, which describes on its official website the Ixtaca project as a “gold and silver exploration project in the Sierra Norte de Puebla”, which is “the first modern could become metal”. my” of that state.

The Senate, which left open the option of extending the concession if consultation rights are respected, for the time being agrees with the residents of Tecoltemi, who oppose the project for fear of running out of water.

“There is a conventional obligation on all Mexican authorities to implement the necessary mechanisms or procedures that will make effective the right to prior, free and informed consultation of indigenous peoples,” the verdict warned.

The ruling comes amid growing surveillance by the Mexican government, by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of foreign mining companies, particularly Canadian ones, which it accuses of tax evasion and influencing communities.

Since López Obrador assumed the presidency in December 2018 with a pledge to stop mining concessions, the proportion of national territory given in concession to mining has been reduced from 10.64% to 8.59%.

However, the Senate refused to declare Articles 6, 10, 15 and 19 of the Mining Act unconstitutional, as claimed by the Tecoltemi indigenous people, because of the “domain” and the rights they grant the nation over mining resources.

The magistrates agreed that “the complaining party is not correct that the disputed articles are unconstitutional” arguing “that they violate their right to dispose, use and enjoy their territory”.

“The regime established by Constitutional Article 27 on nation-owned minerals is clear in establishing the Federation’s exclusive competence to apply the modalities necessary for the utilization of mineral resources,” the SCJN said. .