Switzerland: Los Cedros Freedom of Information Request on IACHR Advisory Opinion 32/25

Summary

On October 31, 2025, the Ecuadorian cloud forest Los Cedros and its inhabitants – the Great False Vampire Bat (Vampyrum spectrum), the Hairy Dracula Orchid (Dracula pubescens), the Brown-headed Spider Monkey (Ateles fusciceps ssp. fusciceps), the Blushing Phantom Butterfly (Cithaerias pireta) and the Jaguar (Panthera onca) – initiated a joint freedom of information request to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in Costa Rica.

Freedom of Information Request by Los Cedros
The Ecuadorian ecosystem Los Cedros was represented by a member of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) based on Article 71 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador recognizing the Rights of Nature. Los Cedros’ freedom of information request to the FDFA was based on Article 6 of the Swiss Federal Act on Freedom of Information in the Administration (FoIA), Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention (AC) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Los Cedros requested access to the cooperation agreement between the FDFA and the IACtHR, as well as to documents regulating the use of the Swiss coat of arms in connection with the dissemination of the 2025 IACtHR Advisory Opinion 32 “Climate emergency and Human Rights”, together with additional background documents explaining Switzerland’s engagement.

Los Cedros stated that access to this information would allow the ecosystem to write a media article on the collaboration between the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) (within the FDFA) and the IACtHR. Acting as an author in its own right, Los Cedros sought to highlight that the IACtHR Advisory Opinion 32/2025 recognizing the rights of nature in paragraphs 279–281, as well as Switzerland’s support in disseminating this landmark recognition, constitute a successful sustainable development initiative.

Debate on Legal Representation
On November 6, the Swiss authority acknowledged receipt of the freedom of information request. However, Los Cedros informed the FDFA that its acknowledgement of receipt appeared to contain an error: the ecosystem was not mentioned as the applicant; rather, the FDFA treated its legal representative as the applicant. The Ecuadorian ecosystem did not agree with this approach and requested a correction of the applicant entry. Los Cedros explained that in a comparable freedom of information access request submitted to the FDFA (No. 2025-01515), the Swiss authority explicitly stated in its acknowledgement of receipt that the request was submitted on behalf of Mar Menor ecosystem. Through this acknowledgment and the subsequent consultation process under Article 11 FoIA, the FDFA had clearly recognized Mar Menor as the applicant and accepted its legal representative.

Los Cedros stated: “The different treatment of Mar Menor and Los Cedros in the FDFA’s acknowledgment of receipt constitutes unequal treatment of legal subjects of the same kind, which is objectively unjustified. Los Cedros, as a terrestrial ecosystem, must not be discriminated against in comparison to Mar Menor, an aquatic ecosystem. Both Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit any discrimination without objective and reasonable justification. In this context, the formal acknowledgment of Los Cedros as an applicant in the FDFA’s correspondence constitutes a necessary measure to ensure equal treatment and transparency toward these legal subjects.”

The FDFA responded: “The identity of the applicant has neither substantive nor procedural relevance in the FoIA procedure. Regardless of whether you submit a request in the name of and on behalf of someone, or in your own name, you remain the contact person for the authority. Accordingly, the acknowledgment of receipt is not incorrect. We therefore refrain from amending the acknowledgment of receipt.”

Debate over Access
On November 14, the FDFA submitted two documents to Los Cedros, the Cooperation Agreement and its extension, stating it hoped this would be of assistance. However, the FDFA had redacted the two documents pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 1 FoIA. In addition, the FDFA requested that the legal representative of Los Cedros clarify or substantially narrow the request for documents related to the 2025–2028 International Cooperation Strategy within 10 days. Regarding the remaining categories of documents, the FDFA indicated that no documents existed.

On November 18, a phone call took place between Los Cedros and the FDFA, in which the two parties discussed the next steps. A week later, Los Cedros clarified the relevant documents and narrowed the search to a list from the Acta-Nova records management system, in order to meet the FDFA’s clarification request. However, the FDFA stated that the clarification was submitted too late and would not be processed further.

On November 26, Los Cedros informed the FDFA that it did not agree with all the redactions in the Cooperation Agreement and its extension, emphasizing that there is a prevailing public interest in disclosure and invoking Article 9 FoIO on the special needs of the media. For the other document categories, Los Cedros maintained that relevant documents do exist. The FDFA responded firmly that the access request had already been conclusively answered and would not be reconsidered. It emphasized that the law does not allow a renewed review simply because the applicant disagrees, and that the statutory deadlines for initiating a mediation procedure under Art. 13, paragraph 2 FoIA cannot be postponed.

Debate over Media Classification
The FDFA also addressed whether Los Cedros and its legal representative qualify as journalists under Swiss national law: “Please also note that neither you personally nor Los Cedros can claim any media privileges under Article 9 FoIO. Neither you nor Los Cedros qualify as “journalists” under the Freedom of Information Act, and neither the FoIA nor its ordinance FoIO provides media privileges regarding the scope of access.”

Debate over Abuse of Rights
The correspondence between the two parties peaked in a culminating note: the Swiss authority FDFA ruled that grave errors had been made by Los Cedros during the entire access procedure, bringing the administrative matter of the Ecuadorian cloud forest to an end.

“In the course of the access procedure, you have, regrettably, shown little willingness to comply with the legal framework of the Freedom of Information Act and the corresponding access process. With your extensive submissions, in which you repeatedly return to matters that have already been addressed and repeatedly set out your personal legal opinions to the FDFA, you repeatedly act outside the legally regulated access procedure and increasingly use the Freedom of Information Act in an abusive manner. In the event of repetition, we therefore reserve the right not to respond to such submissions.”

Los Cedros contested the FDFA’s view. The ecosystem asserted that it had not committed a manifest abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 FoIA or Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB, SR 210), citing relevant Swiss case law (BGE 135 III 162, para. 3.3.1; BGE 134 III 52, para. 2.1 and BVGE 2013/50, para. 7.3). Los Cedros emphasized that all its actions were lawful, proportionate, and aimed at legitimate transparency and timely access. Los Cedros highlighted that citing relevant case law from the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (such as 1C_14/2016, para. 3.5; 1C_74/2015, para. 4.1.1 and 1C_406/2016, para. 3.3) cannot be interpreted as a manifest abuse of rights since the FDFA had not granted access to all documents requested.

Request for Mediation
On December 3, 2025, Los Cedros filed a request for mediation with the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 1 FoIA. The process remains pending.

Related Initiatives