HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AND MECHANISMS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard presentations of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which were followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur and a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms respectively.

James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, presenting his reports, said the main report highlighted his efforts to coordinate his work with other United Nations mechanisms and with relevant regional institutions. It also included a part to the major issue of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting them. Within the terms of his mandate, he had engaged in a range of activities to monitor the human rights conditions of indigenous peoples worldwide to promote steps to improve those conditions. The activities he had carried out fell within a number of interrelated areas of work: promoting good practices; thematic studies; country reports; and responding to cases of alleged human rights violations. In connection with promoting good practices he had worked to advance legal, administrative, and programmatic reforms at the domestic level to implement the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the <rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international instruments.

Speaking as concerned countries on the Special Rapporteur’s reports were Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Nepal, Panama and Peru.

In the interactive debate on the report of the Special Rapporteur, speakers noted, among other issues, that Governments should ensure that there was a greater climate of trust, and a social dialogue between the Government and civil society, including indigenous peoples, to find agreed solutions and mechanisms to work together in the fight against violence and impunity. Speakers also commended and supported the particular emphasis the Special Rapporteur placed on developing a regular cooperative dialogue with all relevant actors. The work of the Special Rapporteur, in cooperation with the United Nations Forum on Indigenous peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would help in the future to consolidate the rights of indigenous peoples, without duplication of work. It was important to coordinate between the mechanisms and mandates of the United Nations system for the protection and promotion of the human rights of indigenous peoples, and to highlight the climate of cooperation between them, as well as between all, including States and civil society, working for the rights of these communities, in particular with regards to good practices and collective participation.

Jannie Lasimbang, Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, presenting the report of the second session, said the thematic focus of the session was guided by resolutions 6/36 and 9/7 of the Human Rights Council; the two main items were the presentation of and discussion on the draft report on the study on lessons learned and challenges to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education, and the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the regional and national levels. The debate revealed that indigenous peoples were still facing serious problems as a result of continued denial of their rights and freedoms, including serious human rights violations. Many stressed that it was extremely important to focus on reconciliation as an important precondition for making the Declaration a reality on the ground. The Expert Mechanism was very encouraged by positive responses from States and indigenous peoples alike to its work, and looked forward to building its work on this spirit of dialogue and cooperation, as it was only through common efforts and constructive dialogue that true progress could be made towards the common goal of ensuring full implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

In the general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, speakers said, among other things, that national human rights institutions had a crucial role to play in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, and encouraged States to ensure that they had strong national human rights institutions established according to the Paris Principles that could effectively protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples. They were encouraged to develop and strengthen their activities to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples. Special Procedures and the mandate holders had a core function in regard to the Council's mission to ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by all; their independence had to be respected in all cases, and it was important that they had the possibility to act and inform the Council on human rights violations. Several speakers also supported the recommendation of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the international community synchronise indigenous-related reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur, and the Expert Mechanism, so as to facilitate the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples, and to strengthen cooperation among these mechanisms.

Speaking in the discussions were Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Australia, Columbia, Norway, New Zealand, Ecuador, Denmark, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Brazil, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, United States, Finland, Morocco, Russian Federation, Senegal, Japan, and Latvia on behalf of fifty-four countries.

National Human Rights Institutions speaking were the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Commission of Human Rights of the Philippines, and Conseil Consultatif des Droits de l'Homme du Maroc. NGOs taking the floor included the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Conectas Dereitos Humanos, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, American Association of Jurists, Indigenous World Association, Saami Council, and International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development.

The Council will continue its general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms after it concludes its discussions on human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 September, it will discuss follow-up to the ninth Special Session and the presentation of the report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya (A/HRC/12/34 and Adds.1-10), which provides a reflection on the Special Rapporteur’s mandate in relation to those of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Human Rights Council, and notes areas for cooperation. There follows a discussion on the practical framework of the Special Rapporteur’s work, including a summary of his activities as they relate to four principal areas of work: promoting good practices; thematic studies; country reports; and cases of alleged human rights violations. The second half of the report is devoted to an analysis of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting them, with the hope of offering insight into how that core issue may be addressed in the future by Governments, indigenous peoples, the United Nations system, and other stakeholders. Among recommendations are that States should develop mechanisms for determining and analysing if, and the extent to which, proposed legislative or administrative measures, including those for natural resource extraction or other development activities, affect indigenous peoples’ particular interests, in order to determine the need for special consultation procedures well before the measures are taken.

A first addendum to the above report is a summary of communications transmitted and replies received (A/HRC/12/34/Add.1), and contains summaries of the communications on alleged human rights violations sent and responses received between 10 June 2008 and 26 August 2009, which are listed alphabetically by country, and within each country, by date. It also contains summaries of Government responses received during the past year to communications that were included in past communications reports.

A second addendum is the Special Rapporteur’s report on the situation of human rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil, which is based on information gathered during a visit to Brazil in August 2008 and on subsequent research and exchanges of information. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Government has manifested a commitment to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with relevant international standards, having ratified ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and supported adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Brazil also has important constitutional and other legal protections for indigenous peoples, and its Government has developed a number of significant programmes in areas of indigenous land rights, development, health and education. Nonetheless, indigenous peoples of Brazil continue to face multiple impediments to the full enjoyment of their human rights and further efforts are needed to ensure that indigenous peoples are able to fully exercise their right to self-determination within the framework of a Brazilian State that is respectful of diversity. The report concludes with recommendations to different actors, including that the Government make every effort to enhance the control of indigenous peoples over their communities, territories and natural resources, including providing effective recognition of indigenous peoples’ own institutions of authority and customary laws.

A third addendum to the above report contains a report of the situation of indigenous peoples in Nepal (A/HRC/12/34/Add.3), and follows a visit to Nepal by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples and focuses on the indigenous peoples of Nepal, comprehensively referred to as Adivasi Janajati. It reviews the human rights situation of the Adivasi Janajati, analysing the ongoing process of constitution-making and political transition as it relates to them and assessing the implementation of Nepal’s expressed commitment to secure their rights. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by expressions of commitment by the Government to advance the rights of Adivasi Janajati, which is manifested by the ratification of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization and the Government’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the same time, he notes a number of ongoing human rights concerns related to a history of discrimination against the Adivasi Janajati. Conscious of the challenges involved in Nepal’s period of transition to democracy, the Special Rapporteur offers several recommendations that may serve to enhance the recognition and protection of the rights of the indigenous peoples in line with the Government’s commitments.

A fourth addendum to the above report on contains a Preliminary Note on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Botswana (A/HRC/12/34/Add.4). The Special Rapporteur carried out a visit to Botswana, by invitation of the Government, between 19 and 28 March 2009. The purpose of the visit was to shed light on the particular challenges that some of the many diverse indigenous peoples of Botswana are facing, especially in relation to their distinct cultural identities and marginalized conditions, with a view towards developing practical solutions to address these challenges. Following the conclusion of his visit to Botswana, the Special Rapporteur provided the Government with a written overview of his initial observations and requested that the Government provide clarification on a number of issues that were identified during the visit. It is apparent to the Special Rapporteur that the Government of Botswana is committed to building a society in which all are equal and to elevating the economic and social conditions of the country’s people. The Special Rapporteur notes a number of important, and in many ways exemplary, initiatives undertaken by the Government to address the situation of historically and still marginalized indigenous peoples in Botswana, particularly the Basarwa (or San), especially with respect to improving their access to crucial services, including health and education, and creating opportunities for income-generation.

Addendum five entitled observations on the situation of the Charco la Pava and other communities affected by the hydroelectric Project Chan 75 (Panamá) is available in Spanish only.

A sixth addendum, containing a report of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Chile, is available in Spanish only.

A seventh addendum contains the conclusions and recommendations of the International Expert Seminar on the Role of United Nations Mechanisms with a Specific Mandate Regarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was held from 4 to 6 February 2009 in Madrid with the Expert Mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the Special Rapporteur, as well as a group of experts from and members of indigenous peoples’ organizations from various regions. The main objective of the meeting was to promote an informal dialogue among the members of the three United Nations mechanisms to better coordinate their work, as well as their activities with other United Nations agencies and bodies. Among conclusions was that specific situations of human rights violations were a priority area of work for the Special Rapporteur. The Permanent Forum and the Expert Mechanism were therefore recommended to develop measures to channel specific allegations of human rights violations presented by indigenous peoples, including to the Special Rapporteur and other relevant mechanisms mandated to address such allegations.

Addendum eight, presenting the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Peru, is available in Spanish only.

A ninth addendum, a preliminary note on the situation of indigenous peoples in Colombia, is available in Spanish only.

A tenth addendum to the above report contains a Preliminary Note on the situation of Indigenous Peoples of Australia (A/HRC/12/34/Add.10) which notes that the Special Rapporteur, at the invitation of the Government, conducted an official mission to Australia from 17 to 28 August 2009. This preliminary report provides an overview of the Special Rapporteur’s initial observations following the conclusion of the visit. His full report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Australia, with conclusions and recommendations, will be provided at a later date. The Note states that the Government of Australia is to be commended for taking significant steps to improve the human rights and socio-economic conditions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia, as well as for its recent expression of support for United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for its apology to the victims of the Stolen Generation. After several days in Australia listening and learning, however, the Special Rapporteur observed a need to develop new initiatives and reform existing ones—in consultation and in real partnership with indigenous peoples—to conform with international standards requiring genuine respect for cultural integrity and self-determination. On serious disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous parts of society, including in terms of life expectancy, basic health, education, unemployment, incarceration, children placed under care and protection orders, and access to basic services, the Government has developed and implemented a number of important initiatives in order to “close the gap” of indigenous disadvantage within a wide range of social and economic areas, with a stated emphasis on women and children, and these programmes must continue to be improved and strengthened.


Presentation of Reports by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Indigenous People

JAMES ANAYA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said that in his written report to the Council, he described the range of activities he had engaged in since his last report. It highlighted his efforts to coordinate his work with other United Nations mechanisms and with relevant regional institutions. It also included a part on the major issue of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting them. He expressed his appreciation for the work of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and said that he fully embraced the Council’s directive that he had to work in cooperation with the Expert Mechanism and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. To this effect he had participated in a seminar to discuss methods of coordination among the three mechanisms. Within the terms of his mandate, he had engaged in a range of activities to monitor the human rights conditions of indigenous peoples worldwide to promote steps to improve those conditions. The activities he had carried out fell within a number of interrelated areas of work: promoting good practices; thematic studies; country reports; and responding to cases of alleged human rights violations.

In connection with promoting good practices he had worked to advance legal, administrative, and programmatic reforms at the domestic level to implement the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international instruments. He had also participated in several thematic seminars organized by non-governmental organizations, United Nations Agencies, indigenous organizations, and other stakeholders. On the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting them, Mr. Anaya said that his aim was to offer practical insight on the nature of this duty an how it might be implemented. During the period under review he had completed reports on Brazil and Nepal after missions to those countries, and a report after a visit to Chile to follow-up on the report of his predecessor. He had also conducted missions to assess indigenous peoples’ conditions in Botswana and Australia, and a follow-up visit to Colombia. Because of limitations of time, he would only offer now brief comments on his final reports on Brazil, Nepal and Chile. He referred the Council to the full text of his reports on those countries, and to documents containing his preliminary observations on Botswana, Australia and Colombia.

In Brazil, the Government already had in place important constitutional and other legal protections for indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, indigenous peoples of Brazil continued to face multiple impediments to the full enjoyment of their individual and collective human rights. On Nepal, he was encouraged by the Government’s expressions of resolve to advance the rights of Adivasi Janajati. At the same time, he noted a number of ongoing human rights concerns related to a history of discrimination against the Adivasi Janajati and their lack of adequate participation in the political process. With regard to Chile, he recognized certain advances by the State towards compliance with the recommendations of his predecessor. He also noted that there remained significant challenges, especially in areas of consultation, land and resource rights, and Government policies and action related to acts of protest by Mapuche people.

On cases of alleged human rights violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples, he noted that during the period under review, he had received information about cases of alleged violations in countries of every continent. In two of the cases, involving different situations in Panama and Peru, he had issued detailed observations and recommendations, in the hope that they would be of use to the Governments. He was grateful to both Governments for their cooperation in his investigation. He however noted that a number of Governments had not responded to his communications requesting information on alleged human rights violations.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia), speaking as a concerned country, said it was appropriate for the Special Rapporteur to receive reports of human rights violations. His work in implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was appreciated. The reports issued by the Special Procedures were very important, and it was regretted that the presentation of some were very much delayed. The report did contain valuable information to be shared with the Council. In Bolivia, 62 per cent of the population stated that it was of indigenous origin. Since 2006 and the Government of the first Indigenous President, Evo Morales, there had been very many reforms to the benefit of indigenous peoples, and the Government had managed to generate significant increase for the Treasury, and had destined a certain part of this for the development of rural and indigenous communities. As far as the new status given to indigenous lands, the Institute for Agrarian Reform had seen new life, and 26 million hectares had seen new land titles over them, most of them granted to indigenous or rural communities. Indigenous knowledge was being included in the curriculum, and the Government was setting up universities and technical institutes in rural areas.

MOSADI K. RAMOTSHABI (Botswana), speaking as a concerned country, said that the country visit to Botswana in March 2009 was an attestation to Botswana’s long-standing commitment to support, and cooperate with, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, and other United Nations human rights mechanisms and bodies, in the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Botswana had been happy to receive the Special Rapporteur and to facilitate his visit in the country. This visit gave the Government an opportunity to dialogue constructively with the Special Rapporteur and offered an opportunity for introspection. The Botswana delegation however wished to underscore Botswana’s position that all Botswanas were indigenous to the country. Botswana was pleased to note that the Special Rapporteur commended Botswana for the long-standing commitment and efforts to address the underdevelopment of remote area communities through various initiatives.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on his visit to Brazil from 14 to 25 August 2008. Their approach was based on the spirit of dialogue and cooperation. In his visit to the country, the Government had provided broad, extensive and direct contact with various aspects of Brazilian indigenous reality. The Special Rapporteur’s visit had included meetings with high-ranking federal officials as well as field visits. He had had the opportunity to clarify questions, in an open and cooperative spirit and had been assured direct and unimpeded access to all communities. According to the National Indian Foundation, there were 611 indigenous lands at different stages of registration process. The surface area covered by the 488 indigenous lands that had reached, at minimum the delimitation stage of the registration process, totalled 12.41 per cent of Brazil’s national territory. As mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, Brazil had developed an advanced methodology to demarcate and register indigenous lands with full participation of indigenous peoples in all stages of the process. The duty to consult them had been clearly incorporated in the Brazilian legislation. On health matters, given the importance of nutritional well-being as a determining factor of overall health conditions, Brazil was dedicated to nutritional monitoring in indigenous communities, with special attention to mothers and children.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking as a concerned country, said this dialogue would contribute towards the success of the Special Rapporteur's mandate and the promotion of human rights in Chile. The Government had begun to examine the report of the 14 of September and would continue to rely on the Special Rapporteur's support in implementing the national obligations. Chile had explained the situation of indigenous peoples in Chile to the Special Rapporteur, and had the opportunity to provide further information on recent developments and measures that had been adopted in this regard. Nineteen per cent of the indigenous peoples continued to be poor, a figure that had decreased considerably, and faster than for non-indigenous peoples. There was significant success in the targeting of social policies. On consultation and participation of indigenous peoples, as recommended by the Special Rapporteur's report, law 19/253 governed the participation of indigenous peoples, and meant that public services could apply the relevant part of indigenous legislation, allowing for a national process of consultation with indigenous peoples. The recommendation aiming to create a greater climate of trust between indigenous communities and authorities had also been borne in mind. Relating to the articles of the Convention which the Constitutional Tribunal had marked out for attention, four educational institutions were considering amending their statutes.

DINESH BHATTARAI (Nepal), speaking as a concerned country, said that as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-cultural country, Nepal attached great importance to the work of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. Nepal voted for the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples two years ago in the United Nations General Assembly, and Nepal later ratified the International Labour Organization Convention no. 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples, and the Government had prepared a comprehensive National Plan of Action for the implementation of this Convention. Further, the 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal guaranteed the right to equality to every citizen and provided equal protection of law. Nepal also recognized the right to impart basic education in mother tongues of all communities. Further, empowerment of Adivasi Janajatis and their enhanced participation in decision-making positions remained among the priorities of the Government, and a reservation and quota system had been introduced to ensure fair representation of all communities. Nepal was proud of its rich diversity, and this diversity had enriched Nepal’s unique unity, social harmony and tolerance. Indigenous peoples had augmented these assets and made major contributions to the making of modern Nepal.

JOSE ISAAC ACOSTA (Panama), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur. Relating to the observations he had made in his report on the issues of the community of Charco La Pava, and other communities impacted by the hydroelectric project currently built by AES Panama, the delegation of Panama highlighted the efforts made by the current Government to resolve this issue. Panama could add today new elements to the report of the visit of the Special Rapporteur. Panama could serve as a best practice example for other similar situation. They had put up a mechanism to improve dialogue between the Government and indigenous people. The issue had been of real interest to the President and the Special Rapporteur had said that he was willing to work in hand with the Government on this issue. The Government had held five meetings with indigenous people and the top management of AES Panama. A time limit of two weeks had been set to find a satisfactory solution to all parties. Discussions had been marked by a climate of collaboration. At the request of indigenous people, surveys of affected families had been carried out. The results had been extremely useful. On the issues of the explosions, meetings had been held with the fire-fighter associations. Further, the Ministry of Health, supported by medical reports, had conduced that open-cast detonations had nothing to do with the health claims that had been made. On compensations and relocation, the Government had instructed the company and the indigenous people to start negations. There was already a draft agreement between both parties, announced the delegation; it would be made public in coming days. Indigenous people had also stated that they were not against development but were requesting respect for their human rights and their dignity. It was the duty of the State to provide this.

JOSE EDUARDO PONCE VIVANCO (Peru), speaking as a concerned country, said the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Peru was carried out as part of the open invitation extended by Peru to the Council's Special Procedures, as part of its commitment to all fundamental freedoms and human rights. The Government had received the report in a constructive spirit, and was reviewing it with great seriousness, as would be proved by the significant steps forward that had been taken so far. Some had accused the Government of perpetrating a massacre, with hundreds of killings, and mass graves, some even claiming genocide. The Rapporteur's report cast a true light on these accusations, and made it clear that what happened was nothing even close to genocide or gross human rights violations of indigenous peoples, forced disappearances, or any such gross human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur had found no concrete evidence on deaths over and above the confirmed deaths, nor of mass graves. Peru was very proud to be a democratic State, with the full rule of law, where human rights and fundamental freedoms were fully enforced, and the Government had the Constitutional obligation to protect public order and protect and promote the rights of all Peruvians. The conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur provided useful guidance.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People

ANNA UGGLA (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union wished to thank Mr. Anaya for his report. The European Union shared the view of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples that close cooperation with other United Nations mechanisms and institutions constituted a fundamental aspect of his mandate. It was however equally important to avoid any duplication of work among these bodies. Further, what steps should be taken to enhance cooperation among indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, particularly with a view of preventing duplication of activities and better division of work, the European Union asked, also enquiring how the Special Rapporteur saw the main tasks of his mandate in this context, and asking the Special Rapporteur’s view on how to achieve a better understanding of the roles and functions of these mechanisms among all stakeholders, in particular indigenous groups. Finally, the European Union would like to express its appreciation for the Special Rapporteur’s work on identifying and promoting good practices, especially by offering technical and advisory assistance to interested States and other stakeholders.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s interest in the rights of Australia’s indigenous peoples at a time when this was a priority issue for the Australian Government. They looked forward to giving due consideration to the Special Rapporteur’s full report when it was released. Australia appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s acknowledgement of the Government’s significant steps to improve the human rights and socio-economic conditions of indigenous Australians. The Government had committed to introducing legislation into Parliament this year to make sure that the measures under the Northern Territory Emergency Response conformed with their Racial Discrimination Act. How could Governments consult to ensure that particular attention was paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities? When announcing Australia’ support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australia’s Minster for Indigenous Affairs had recognised how important it was for indigenous Australians to have a voice and means to express it.

ANGELINO GARZON (Colombia) said for Colombia, the recent visit of the Special Rapporteur last July was of great importance. He had had the opportunity to meet and hold a dialogue with the President, Parliament, monitoring bodies, civil society, and representatives of indigenous peoples. He noted the efforts the Government was making for health and education for social development. Colombia shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the vulnerability of certain indigenous communities, agreeing with the Special Rapporteur that armed groups seemed entirely unfamiliar with international human rights and humanitarian standards, and the Government would be unstinting in its efforts to bring to justice those who had perpetrated such violations of human rights in Colombia. The State had made significant efforts to ensure that no violation of indigenous persons was tolerated. There was international recognition of the Colombian responsibility. The recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were approved. Colombia must ensure that there was a greater climate of trust, and a social dialogue between the Government and civil society, including indigenous peoples, to find agreed solutions and mechanisms to work together in the fight against violence and impunity.

BJORN OLAV MEGARD (Norway) said that Norway commended the work of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and his emphasis on the promotion of good practices. In 2005, the Government of Norway and Samediggi, the Sami Parliament in Norway, agreed on specific procedures as to how consultations between Semediggi and State authorities were to be carried out. These procedures had led to increased awareness of the duty to consult, throughout the State apparatus. As for those annexes in the Special Rapporteur’s report that regarded the new mineral act in Norway, proposals for legislation concerning Sami land rights and recourses outside of Finnmark County would soon be under consideration, and the Norwegian Government intended to engage in further consultations with Samediggi regarding these issues. In conclusion, Norway commended and supported the particular emphasis the Special Rapporteur placed on developing a regular cooperative dialogue with all relevant actors, and welcomed further dialogue between its Government and the Special Rapporteur.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) noted with interest the Special Rapporteur’s discussion on the relationship between his mandate and other United Nations bodies that carried out work on indigenous rights, as well as on the duty to consult. New Zealand supported the recommendation contained in his report on strengthening efforts to improve coordination among the three mechanisms covering indigenous rights issues. They particularly supported his work to reduce duplication and increase complementarity between these mechanisms. Could the Special Rapporteur give further examples of the sorts of decisions he saw as affecting indigenous peoples in ways not felt by others in a multicultural society?

MARIA DEL CARMEN VIVAR (Ecuador) said there were very many common points being developed, including the special treatment to be given to indigenous peoples in the protection and promotion of their rights. The Special Rapporteur had made a valuable contribution in drafting a Chapter on Indigenous Peoples which had been carried out in the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador. His report recognised that there were significant provisions in the Constitution which consolidated the rights of indigenous persons. The Constitution recognised the right to consultation as a collective right, meaning that the State should strive to promote a genuine, free, and informed dialogue. The work of the Special Rapporteur, in cooperation with the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would help in the future to consolidate the rights of indigenous peoples, without duplication of work.

PETER HERTEL RASMUSSEN (Denmark) said that Denmark fully agreed with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people that coordination and cooperation with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was a very important component in fulfilling the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. In this regard, did the Special Rapporteur see room for further improvement, Denmark asked. The Special Rapporteur was also to be commended for his very active role in investigating and reporting on the situations of indigenous peoples in selected areas through country visits. In this regard, how did the Special Rapporteur intend to organize his follow-up activities to these visits while conducting new visits in the coming years, Denmark asked. Further, what was the Special Rapporteur’s immediate perception of the extent of the problem regarding States’ duty to consult with indigenous peoples, Denmark asked. As for his reflections on the possible responsibility of private companies to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, including the principle of consultation, to what extent and in what ways did the Special Rapporteur expect to explore this topic further, Denmark asked.

JUAN JOSE IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said that Mexico had listened to the comments with great interest and noted that the recommendations made fully tallied with what they were doing in their own country, at the federal, state and local level. The Special Rapporteur had contributed to the recognition of the problems of indigenous people. Mexico was familiar with the concerns and how difficult it was to implement the recommendations. In Mexico consultation was part of the Constitution. There was a national plan on the rights of indigenous people in Mexico, which included polices targeted at their development, in order to broaden public activities and to ensure an improvement in the living conditions of indigenous people. The suggestions and recommendations were in Mexico’s eyes invaluable, particularly those with regard to education. Mexico reiterated that its commitment was consistent with development with dignity, doing away with backwardness.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela) noted that the Special Rapporteur had said it was important to coordinate between the mechanisms and mandates of the United Nations system for the protection and promotion of the human rights of indigenous peoples, and to highlight the climate of cooperation between them, as well as between all, including States and civil society, working for the rights of these communities, in particular with regards to good practices and collective participation. The Constitution of Venezuela had a whole chapter on the recognition and protection of its peoples, including the indigenous peoples and communities, enshrining their collective property of their lands, the right to maintain and develop their ethnicity and culture, the right to political participation, and others. Venezuela was fully willing to continue to cooperate with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and was fully in favour of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities.

MANON BOISCLAIR (Canada) said that Canada would like to reiterate its support for the important role of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Canada further noted with appreciation Mr. Anaya’s resolve to focus his work on the core issues in specific countries and specific situations of allegations of human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur also rightfully highlighted the importance of the coordination with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and asked whether the Special Rapporteur continued to pursue his efforts in this area? Canada indicated that it would be interested to know if the Special Rapporteur also envisioned coordination with other bodies which dealt with individual complaints. Canada appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to take a balanced approach on the delicate issue of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting their particular interests, and would be grateful for any views or guidance the Special Rapporteur may have to offer for situations where, despite efforts, consultations had reached an impasse.

TONYA GONELLA FRICHNER, of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said that the final report of the North American Region Preparatory Meeting to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ eighth session called upon the Special Rapporteur to conduct an investigation on the human rights impact of international borders on indigenous people, in particular those whose lands and traditional territories were divided by international borders. Indigenous peoples would no doubt be able to submit information about specific situations if the Special Rapporteur decided to implement this critical investigation from a global perspective.

COURTNEY MUSSER (United States) said the United States welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur for its insightful analysis of the overlapping mandates of the indigenous mechanisms in the United Nations system. Awareness-building of the key differences among the mandates, particularly the unique role of the Special Rapporteur, would hopefully reduce the frustration of misdirected requests for assistance or attention to possible human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur was congratulated for drawing attention to the fact that a lack of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples had in some countries led to anger and mistrust, which had spiralled into violence - his pragmatic approach, suggesting that the character of consultation procedures and their object were shaped by the specific situation was appreciated, and the Government agreed with the importance of adequate consultation to the effective implementation of Government programmes intended to improve the lives of all citizens, including indigenous peoples. It was essential to build confidence among all parties for the best public policies to emerge. The consultation process when properly carried out contributed to confidence building, and the formulation of effective policy.

PEKKA METSO (Finland) said that Finland would like to thank the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people for his excellent report. Finland highly appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s reflections on the relationship between his mandate and other United Nations mechanisms dealing with indigenous issues, and particularly appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to incorporate the gender perspective in his work and to pay special attention to the vulnerabilities of indigenous children. The report’s focus on consultation and cooperation by States with indigenous peoples was also commendable. Finland stressed the need to consult indigenous peoples and to provide them with real opportunities to participate in decisions having an impact on their living conditions. Further, Finland agreed with Mr. Anaya that an important component of efforts to build good practices was a commitment to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration could indeed be a very useful tool for further cooperation and partnership with indigenous peoples.

KATHERINA ROSE, of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said that the experiences of Aboriginal peoples in Canada were a daily reminder of the most important human rights challenges facing their country. Over the past years, Canada had taken a number of steps to improve the situation of Aboriginal peoples and significant recent advances included the apology to survivors of Indian residential schools and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, Aboriginal peoples continued to represent one of the most disadvantaged populations in Canada; they had a higher unemployment rate and a lower personal income. Canada had yet to express support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

CECILIA RACHEL QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, said the Special Rapporteur should take note of the work of national human rights institutions, individually and collectively, as resources and partners in the work to monitor and protect the human rights of indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur may wish to study whether the consultation processes of international finance institutions that recommended and financed many large projects were compliant with human rights. National human rights institutions could play a very important role to open the channels for these consultations, and this was why they were often called the bridge between Government and civil society. Climate change and environmental concerns were top priorities for the United Nations and for many nations. Respecting the rights and culture of indigenous peoples could only benefit the world community.

SALOMON WANUCH, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Peruvian Government was not only refusing to apply the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, but was adopting measures affecting the indigenous peoples, and this could lead to a renewal of conflict. An impartial commission, as suggested by the Special Rapporteur, could impartially investigate the causes of the conflict, but this was not the case. The consultation process was being discussed, but the State continued to implement high-impact strategies in indigenous territories, without any discussion at all. The State should approve the indigenous consultation law, and cease the harassment of indigenous leaders.

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said that during his mission to Colombia, the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples had received numerous reports of grave and systematic violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples. This highlighted the non-compliance with the recommendations made by Mr. Stavenhagen on the occasion of his mission in Colombia in 2004. Further, the Colombian Commission of Jurists wished to express its preoccupation regarding the increasing militarization of indigenous territories in Colombia. Finally, the Colombian Commission of Jurists asked the Special Rapporteur to urge the Colombian Government to apply the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular by adopting appropriate means to prevent violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, by modifying the bill on consultations and by consulting indigenous peoples.

CAMILA LISSA ASANO, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that as pointed out in the Special Rapporteur’s report, Brazil had important constitutional and legal protections which had been reinforced by international commitments. Much remained to be done however to assure respect for indigenous peoples and their political, social and organizational systems. Human rights violations in Brazil affecting indigenous peoples included extreme poverty, child mortality and violence that accentuated the polarization between indigenous and non-indigenous individuals. Due to discrimination, indigenous peoples still lacked access to effective mechanisms of participation in governmental and public forums. Brazil needed to guarantee the right to consultation set forth in International Labour Organization Convention 169.

ANA CRISTINA LOAIZA, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said the situation of the rural and indigenous communities in Argentina was worthy of the attention of the Council, as there were common occurrences of brutal eviction, arbitrary arrest, discrimination and persecution of indigenous peoples as they defended their right to life and food, suffering discrimination of their rights to education and agriculture. There was open-cast mining, polluting the land and environment, with the complicity of the authorities. Millions of hectares of indigenous forest lands were being destroyed. The Government had the obligation to comply with the national Constitution, and there should be proper assessments of communities, who therefore suffered from vulnerability to eviction. Humanity needed the presence of indigenous peoples, they refused to disappear.

JAMES ANAYA, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, in his concluding remarks, said that he would like to thank all Government delegates who had provided useful comments and asked questions, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations and indigenous peoples. The questions that had been asked fell into three areas: cooperation with the Expert Mechanism and other United Nations institutions; States’ duty of consultation; and the work methods of the Special Rapporteur. Regarding coordination, as a practical matter, how could coordination be carried forward, the Special Rapporteur asked, stating that this could be addressed by maintaining regular contact. Mr. Anaya was happy to report that they had been able to do this; that they had met at the meetings of the Permanent Forum and Expert Mechanisms; they had developed specific work methods of coordination; and, in attending the Expert Mechanisms, arrangements were made for the Special Rapporteur to meet with representatives of indigenous people representatives. Regarding other mechanisms, the Special Rapporteur had endeavored to coordinate his own work with that of treaty bodies, and he had met with members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

As for the questions on consultation, Mr. Anaya said that the failure and lack of adequate consultation was a problem in almost every country he had looked into, hence the focus of his report. Lack of consultation had indeed been a core problem in those cases that he had addressed and that were discussed this afternoon, Mr. Anaya said. As for Australia’s question on how to ensure the interests and rights of indigenous children and women, the Special Rapporteur said that indigenous people had a tradition of caring for their children as he had observed during his visit in Australia. Allowing indigenous peoples to have the space and confidence to organize themselves was thus a key element to contribute to ensure the interests and rights of indigenous peoples. As for the questions on follow-up, the Special Rapporteur said he wanted to look to indigenous peoples and Governments to assist him in this regard: Governments could contribute by providing complete and accurate information, as could indigenous peoples. He would aim to address cross-cutting themes, such as cases involving a lack of consultation of indigenous peoples, Mr. Anaya said.

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on its second session (A/HRC/12/32). The Expert Mechanism’s second session was held from 10 to 14 August 2009 in Geneva and participants included representatives of States, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies, non-governmental organizations, academics and a large number of indigenous peoples. During the session, participants discussed a draft study on lessons learned and challenges to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education, and the study was adopted. The Expert Mechanism also held a discussion on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, addressing the implementation of the Declaration at the regional and national levels, as well as specific provisions in the Declaration identifying remedies for infringements of rights. In addition to the study on the right of indigenous peoples to education, the Expert Mechanism adopted six proposals. Five proposals are addressed to the Human Rights Council and touch on the following topics: a suggested thematic study on indigenous peoples’ right to participate in decision-making; human rights institutions and mechanisms; consideration of indigenous peoples’ rights during the Human Rights Council sessions; the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations; and follow-up to the Durban Review Conference. The sixth proposal, regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was addressed to United Nations specialized agencies.

The Council has before it the report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, containing a study on lessons learned and challenges to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education (A/HRC/12/33), which, in a first substantive section, provides a human rights-based analysis of the scope and content of the right to education. The study also examines indigenous education systems and institutions, including integration of indigenous perspectives into mainstream education systems and institutions; lessons learned, for example with regard to international development assistance and teaching of indigenous languages; and challenges and measures to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education, including focuses on discrimination and poor access to education and issues affecting women, among others. An Annex to the report contains the Expert Mechanism advice No. 1 on the right of indigenous peoples to education.

Presentation of Reports of Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

JANNIE LASIMBANG, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said the Expert Mechanism had received increased attention at its second session, with about 400 accredited participants. The thematic focus of the session was guided by resolutions 6/36 and 9/7 of the Human Rights Council; the two main items were the presentation of and discussion on the draft report on the study on lessons learned and challenges to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education, and the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the regional and national levels. On the study on the right of indigenous peoples to education, this elaborated among others: key international and regional human rights instruments and provisions which affirmed, contextualised and elaborated upon the right to education; provisions stipulating the aims and objectives of education; indigenous education systems and institutions; and lessons learned, challenges as well as measures to achieve indigenous peoples' right to education.

During the deliberation on the implementation of the Declaration, it was made clear by the Expert Mechanism that it had no intention of trying to position itself as a monitoring body, for which it had no mandate. At the same time, the Declaration represented a commitment by the United Nations and its Member States, within the framework of the obligations established by the United Nations Charter to protect and promote human rights in a non-discriminatory basis. A large amount of information was received on efforts to implement the Declaration at the national level, including through institutions devoted to combat discrimination, legislative developments and improved participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making. The debate revealed that indigenous peoples were still facing serious problems as a result of continued denial of their rights and freedoms, including serious human rights violations. Many stressed that it was extremely important to focus on reconciliation as an important precondition for making the Declaration a reality on the ground. The Expert Mechanism was very encouraged by positive responses from States and indigenous peoples alike to its work, and looked forward to building its work on this spirit of dialogue and cooperation, as it was only through common efforts and constructive dialogue that true progress could be made towards the common goal of ensuring full implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

LINA VAN DER WEYDEN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Human Rights Council had been founded three years ago with a vision of ensuring the effective enjoyment of human rights by all. Special Procedures and their mandate holders had a core function in this regard. Their independence had to be respected in all cases. It was important that they had the possibility to act and inform the Council on human rights violations. The European Union was concerned to note that State response rates to urgent appeals and other communications were less than 50 per cent. The most urgent need to improve the system was to explore means of ensuring that States complied with their responsibility to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures. The European Union believed that it was important that the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee continued to execute its mandate in an independent manner. The European Union welcomed the progress achieved to prepare a draft United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. As for the functioning of the treaty bodies and Special Procedures, the European Union encouraged the High Commissioner to ensure adequate staff and facilities for these mechanisms.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway) said the Expert Mechanism had a crucial role to play in promoting indigenous peoples rights, and it was an important thematic advisory body. Its recommendations that Member States should pay particular attention to the right to education of indigenous peoples in the Universal Periodic Review process of the Human Rights Council as well as under its Special Procedures was valued, as were the six recommendations put forward to the Council. In particular, Norway supported the proposal made by the Expert Mechanism that the Human Rights Council allow the Expert Mechanism to prepare a study on indigenous peoples' right to participate in decision-making, which was of fundamental importance and a precondition for the realisation of a vast number of indigenous peoples' rights. National human rights institutions had a crucial role to play in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, and Norway encouraged States to ensure that they had strong national human rights institutions established according to the Paris Principles, that could effectively protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, and were encouraged to develop and strengthen their activities to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking on behalf of the Platform for Education and Training for Human Rights, said he would like to welcome Senegal which had just joined the Platform for Education and Training for Human Rights. The Government of Morocco had organized a seminar on the project of the Declaration on Education and Training in Human Rights in Marrakech on 16 and 17 July 2009. Almost 30 countries and 24 international experts, along with researchers, academics and civil society representatives had participated at this seminar. The High Commissioner for Human Rights also sent a message to the participants, highlighting the important role this Declaration would play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the prevention of their violation. The seminar constituted an important step in the process of elaboration of the project of the Declaration of Education and Training in Human Rights. It had allowed clarifying and responding to the incertitude on the necessity to elaborate a Declaration on Education and Training in Human Rights; to hold a rich and interactive dialogue on the subject of education and training in human rights; and to address this subject in a holistic and inclusive approach. The Platform for Education and Training for Human Rights had submitted to this Council a draft resolution which it hoped would be co-sponsored by many delegations and which would hopefully be adopted by consensus.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people had focused on achievements, as well as challenges, in the fulfilment of the human rights of indigenous peoples, in areas such as combating poverty and hunger, education and health, as well as the need to fully consult with indigenous communities in projects of development and infrastructures. The establishment of the National Commission of Indigenous Policies was an important step to strengthen dialogue and full participation of the indigenous peoples in Brazil. Referring to the activities of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Brazil welcomed the focus of the Expert Mechanism on the right to education. The right to high quality and cross cultural education was guaranteed in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. More than 90 per cent of the 10,000 teachers at the indigenous schools of Brazil were themselves indigenous. In regard to higher education, the Brazilian Federal Government had created affirmative action programmes to facilitate access by indigenous students to public universities across the country.

SERGEY KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) said the reports presented were interesting. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples both raised the issue of participation of indigenous peoples in issues reflecting their interests. The proposal of the Experts to consider the reports of the Special Rapporteur and the Expert Mechanism and of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights within a single session of the Human Rights Council would improve the Council's efficiency. With regards to the Universal Periodic Review, Russia understood the desire of the Expert Mechanism to draw attention to the situation of the indigenous peoples, however, the goals of the review had already been codified and set down, and States themselves set their national priorities. However, the issue of indigenous peoples could be raised in questions during the Universal Periodic Review. The right to self-determination was understood by Russia to be within a framework of broad self-determination within the borders of existing States. Objective information should be provided to the international community.

CHEIKH TIDIANE THIAM (Senegal) said that Senegal wished to commend the members of the Platform for Education and Training in Human Rights. Senegal strongly supported this initiative as it was convinced that, if it was successful, this would significantly contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. In the view of Senegal, the content of the draft Declaration on Education and training in Human Rights should inter alia take into account illiteracy, poverty reduction and the gender dimension. It would further be useful to have scientific contributions and such from parliaments and local communities, so that these dimensions could be taken into account and because there was a constant change in development. Further, sharing good practices could facilitate the implementation of the Declaration, both at the national and the regional level. Senegal was of the view that the international community had many challenges to tackle, but it could rise to the challenges, and it must do so.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan), as the main sponsor of Human Rights Council resolution 8/13 on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, commended the members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee for their untiring efforts in undertaking the tasks that had been entrusted to them by the Council thus far. Over the past 15 months they had been able to receive valuable input from Governments and other stakeholders on the elimination of discrimination against leprosy-affected people through compilation of information by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and through open-ended consultation on the subject organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in January of this year. Japan was now preparing a draft resolution to ensure greater procedural transparency in the process of the finalization of the principles and guidelines in States’ formulation and implementation of their policies and measures for persons affected by leprosy and their family members.

COURTNEY MUSSER (United States) said the United States strongly supported the recommendation of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the international community synchronise indigenous-related reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur, and the Expert Mechanism, so as to facilitate the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples, and to strengthen cooperation among these mechanisms. The United States appreciated the opportunity for States to review at an early stage the draft agenda for the Expert Mechanism's third session, during which the United States looked forward to providing input on indigenous people and the right to participate in decision-making, should the Council adopt the Experts' recommendation for the next study topic.

VALERIJS ROMANOVSKIS (Latvia), speaking on behalf of 54 countries, said that these countries would like to raise the issue of promoting cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, particularly through the promotion of the universalization of standing invitations. The 54 countries were united by the decision to extend standing invitations to all Special Procedures, and they believed that this showed their readiness and willingness to cooperate fully with the Human Rights Council and a concrete contribution to the strengthening of the Special Procedures system. It was noted with satisfaction that the number of countries that had extended standing invitations had continued to grow during the last year, and it was hoped that other countries would follow this commendable example in future Universal Periodic Review sessions. The 54 countries continued to encourage the countries running for election to the Council to extend standing invitations as part of their overall commitment. They also appreciated that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had continued to give visibility to the standing invitations on its website. At the same time, they would like to encourage the Office to reflect on its website the information on standing invitations that had been accepted by States in the course of the Universal Periodic Review process.

MIRANDA BROWN (Australia) said that the Prime Minister of Australia had extended on 13 February 2008 an apology to the indigenous people. On the first anniversary of this motion, the Government had announced the creation of an Indigenous Healing Foundation. Australia had also announced its support for the Declaration of Indigenous People last April. The Australian Government was committed to close the gap between indigenous people and Australians, especially in key areas such as health and education. She noted that they would only succeed in closing the gap if it was done in collaboration with the indigenous people.

LARS VOLCK MADSEN (Denmark) said State cooperation with the international human rights bodies and mechanisms was very important - their effective and independent functioning was crucial to the protection of human rights everywhere. These bodies and mechanisms, including treaty bodies and Special Procedures, often did not receive sufficient cooperation from States - and all should therefore issue standing invitations and cooperate fully and in good faith with the independent international and regional preventive and monitoring institutions. States needed to grant them unconditional and unhindered access to institutions and facilities of their choice. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had had an impressive start, with Experts showing efficiency, quality and political sensitivity in conducting their work. These qualities would be essential over the next years as well if the Mechanism's expert advice were to have an impact. A major challenge however concerned follow-up to the studies of the Expert Mechanism, which was not the primary responsibility of the Mechanism.

PEKKA METSO (Finland) said that Finland thanked the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for its useful report, and it valued the work done to finalize the study on lessons learned and challenges to achieve the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education. Finland considered it crucial that attention was also paid to the follow-up of the study, and further guidance and views by the Expert Mechanism on how to achieve this would be welcome. While moving on to considering other issues, it would also be important to ensure that the results of the work done would be carried over. Finland considered the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations an important element in giving real possibilities for indigenous representatives to participate at the international level. Finland also agreed with the importance that the mechanism had given to broaden the scope of the Voluntary Fund, in particular in relation to treaty bodies, and it hoped that increasing numbers of States would join Finland in contributing to the fund.

EDGARDO TORO (Venezuela) said that Venezuela valued the content of the report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The delegation of Venezuela had actively participated in the work of the Expert Mechanism and they were ready to continue to support its work. They highlighted the conclusions of the study on experience gained and the difficulties experienced in the implementation of the rights of indigenous people. Venezuela supported the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and it believed that it was important to protect the rights of indigenous people.

AMINA LEMRYNI, of Conseil Consultatif des droits de l'homme du Maroc, said that it was very interested in the draft Declaration on Human Rights Training and Education. This was a valuable process, and the Moroccan Consultative Council for Human Rights was contributing towards it. A draft report had been submitted. The draft Declaration should have a strong definition of human rights training and education. Everyone should be made aware of their rights, and the Declaration should stress the importance of human rights institutions as coordinators, players, prime movers and stakeholders. Human rights education and training was a determining factor for a culture of gender equality.

CECILIA RACHEL QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, said that the discussion on the right to education of indigenous peoples was very important. Indigenous peoples had the right not only to education in the so-called mainstream subjects, but also to education in their own traditional knowledge. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines hoped that efforts would be made to coordinate these and future discussions with the work of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the Declaration to the Right to Human Rights Education. Human rights protection and promotion could not be boiled down to one formula and it may be necessary or effective in some contexts to establish specific national institutions for indigenous people’s rights. Any State that considered this recommendation, however, must be reminded that the best way to ensure that such an institution would truly protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples was to comply with the Paris Principles for national human rights institutions rather than being under the executive branch of the Government or any other body of Government.

KENNETH DEER, of Indigenous World Association, said that they were dismayed that indigenous representatives who had travelled here over the weekend had not been able to get on the list of the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur because non-governmental organizations with a permanent presence had taken much of the speaking time available. Whenever possible, indigenous delegates had to be given the opportunity to represent themselves. In their view, an important role of the Expert Mechanism was to advise the Human Rights Council on how to apply the rights contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They also welcomed the report on indigenous people’s right to education and the fact that this study had recognized education as a treaty right.

MATTIAS AHREN, of Saami Council, said the reports of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were excellent, and the Human Rights Council received them in a positive spirit. The Expert Mechanism dwelled on the most pressing issues for indigenous peoples, and this was an excellent precedent. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples was also welcome, in particular the addenda on specific situations. Sweden had so far ignored the Special Rapporteur's efforts, and this was another example of Sweden's ignoring the United Nations constant attempts to protect the rights of the Saami people. The recent adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a step forward, as it recognised the definition of the term "peoples", a term of particular interest to indigenous peoples. The Human Rights Council should review its organisational work when it came to the possibility to address it during the issue of indigenous rights.

WILTON LITTELCHILD, of International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said that he wished to underscore the importance of the Expert Mechanism Advice No. 1 (2009) on the “Treaty Right to Education”. This recognition was consistent with their elders’ oral testimony which was a very important consideration and a critical element for their ancestors at treaty time. The International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development further reminded that any “fiscal caps” on education must now be removed if these rights were to be implemented as clarified; otherwise they would continue to be treaty and basic human rights violations. Finally, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people was thanked for his report, particularly for the substantive consideration of the duty to consult, which however was not only a legal duty, but also an international legal principle of treaty-making that required mutual consent.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09117E