C-480/19
Exception in favor of indigenous communities to the legal monopoly in the production of alcoholic beverages. Discrimination of Afro-Colombian, Palenque, and Raizal communities
Constitutionality review as per a citizen request (Audre Karina Mena Mosquera & other) of the Act 1816 of 2016
Date: 10/15/2019
Judge-Rapporteur: Alberto Rojas Ríos
The reviewed provisions. The Act adopted the regime of monopoly of production of distilled liquors for the departments. Its prime purpose is revenue generation for the departments to spend in education, health services, and public health protection. Article 7, paragraph provides an exemption in favor of indigenous communities so they can produce alcoholic beverages according to their traditional uses for domestic consumption and traditional medicine practices.
The plaintiff´s arguments. Two citizens filed a legal action requesting the constitutionality review of this regulation given the fact that it indirectly restricted the production by the Afro-Colombian, Palenque, and Raizal communities who use their produced liquors with the same traditional purposes.
Issue: Do other ethnic groups than indigenous have also the right to produce their own alcoholic beverages for consumption and traditional medicine purposes?
Ruling and reasoning. Yes. The Court ruled the CONDITIONAL CONSTITUTTIONALITY of the article, provided that Afro-Colombian, Palenque, and Raizal communities are included within the authorization to produce distilled liquors that have a traditional and ancestral meaning. In its opinion, these communities are holders of inherent rights so that their spiritual, cultural, ancestral, medicinal expressions, etc., are protected by the Constitution. These peoples have alcoholic beverages, such as biche, which are part of their cultural identity, their traditional medicine, and their customs, similar to that of indigenous communities. Excluding them from the possibility of producing alcoholic beverages, which have a cultural, ancestral or traditional meaning, implies an undue interference with their rights.
|