ArticleslgStudy

science

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay rather than just read about it. In short: Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay (Communication No.2751/2016) was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2019. The case was initiated by a group of farmers in Paraguay who lived next to soybean plantations that had been using illegal agrochemicals.

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay — main illustration
Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay (Communication No.2751/2016) was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2019. The case was initiated by a group of farmers in Paraguay who lived next to soybean plantations that had been using illegal agrochemicals. Contamination from negligent practices had resulted negative health effects, including the death of one farmer, Rubén Portillo Cáceres, and the poisoning of 22 others as well as negative impacts on the livelihoods of families living in the area. Despite an investigation by local and state officials finding evidence of wrongdoing, the state did not put environmental protection measures into effect and large amounts of chemicals continued to be released near the victims' homes. In a resolution on 9 August 2019, the committee ruled in favor of the farmers, finding that their rights to life, privacy, family life, and residence were violated, and that Paraguay did not adequately demand compliance with environmental regulations or repair the damage caused. Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay is a landmark court case in international toxics regulation. It marked the first instance of the United Nations Human Rights Committee recognizing that a state can violate its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by failing to take action in cases of environmental harm. Paraguay was the first country in the world to be condemned by the Human Rights Committee for the death of a person from pesticide poisoning.

Background

94% of arable land in Paraguay is dedicated to the agricultural production of commodities such as soybeans, corn and cotton. Paraguay is the world's seventh-largest producer of transgenic soybeans, a crop frequently fumigated with pesticides such as bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, paraquat and atrazine. Between 2011 and 2013, the import of pesticides to Paraguay nearly quadrupled, from 8.8 to 32.4 million liters. Yerutí is a campesino colony founded by Paraguay in 1991 on land that an education minister of dictator Alfredo Stroessner surrendered in compensation for the embezzlement of public funds. While the 2,212-hectare (5,470-acre) colony has 223 lots, by 2019 there were only 34 registered properties, with industrial soybean fields occupying the untitled public land. Despite Agrarian Reforms meant to prevent the practice, much of the land is sold or leased to soybean plantations run by Brazilians and Brasiguayos. The widespread use of agrochemicals in Yerutí has impacted living conditions, domestic economies and the health of residents. Contamination of aquifers and water sources rendered the Yerutí and Kuairû streams unusable for fishing. Residents also experienced the deterioration of their crops, losing fruit trees, as well as the death of their livestock.

Pesticide poisoning incident

Rubén Portillo Cáceres, a farmer from the village of Colonia Yerutí in Canindeyú Department of eastern Paraguay, lived with his family on property adjacent to the transgenic soybean fields of Condor Agricola and Hermanos Galhera. During the soybean fumigation season at the beginning of 2011, the 26-year-old farmer fell ill, experiencing headaches, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three days later, on 6 January 2011, he died while on his way to the hospital in Curuguaty. His death was determined to be the result of toxic levels of pesticides in his system. Another 22 other residents of the village also became ill, including Portillo Cáceres's two-year-old son, all of whom were admitted to the hospital.

Investigation Following Rubén's death and the mass poisoning incident, Curuguaty Hospital director Angie Duarte collected blood and urine samples from the victims and contacted the Prosecutor's Office, the National Service for Plant and Seed Quality and Health, and the Ministry of Environment. The Prosecutor's Office office began an investigation and government inspectors arrived on 13 January. They documented several violations of environmental laws, finding that the expansive soybean farming operations that bordered the family farm were not separated by required buffer zones. Soybeans had also been planted up to the edge of community walkways and there were no protective strips of vegetation to shield residents from pesticides. Inspectors conducted tests for chemicals and found evidence of restricted or banned agricultural insecticides in the Portillo Cáceres family's well water, including aldrin, lindane, and endosulfan. The concentration of lindane, a chemical related to the appearance of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, was three times the limit established for humans by the World Health Organization. The two agribusinesses involved in the cultivation of soybeans around Yerutí, Condor SA/KLM SA (Condor Agricola) and Hermanos Galhera Agrovalle del Sol S.A/Emmerson Shinin (Hermanos Galhera), were owned by Brazilians and found to have engaged in negligent practices. Hermanos Galhera supplies soybeans to the multinational agribusinesses ADM, Cargill and Bunge Limited. The investigation determined that freshwater sources had been contaminated by chemical residues, finding chemical containers on the ground and citing poor management practices. The corporations did not possess environmental permits for their operations and were washing their spraying equipment in local streams. According to one of the inspectors, neither of the corporations met "the most basic standards of environmental control". The two firms were fined, but denied responsibility and their cases were later dropped following an appeal.

Legal history

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay illustration
Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay: A soybean field in Paraguay
A soybean field in Paraguay
Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay: Location of Canindeyú Department within Paraguay
Location of Canindeyú Department within Paraguay

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

In research
Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 2019 in Paraguay, 2019 in case law, 2019 in the United Nations, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay in simple terms?

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay (Communication No.2751/2016) was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2019. The case was initiated by a group of farmers in Paraguay who lived next to soybean plantations that had been using illegal agrochemicals.

Why does Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay.

Tags

  • 2019 in Paraguay
  • 2019 in case law
  • 2019 in the United Nations
  • Human rights abuses in Paraguay
  • Pesticide regulation
  • Soybean industry
  • Toxic effects of pesticides
  • United Nations Human Rights Committee case law
  • United Nations resolutions

Keep exploring