Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 16th Session
Item 3. Study and advice on the impact of militarization on the rights of Indigenous Peoples
Statement by The Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)
Dear Chairperson,
Members of the Expert Mechanism,
Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI) appreciates that EMRIP decided to devote its annual study and advice to the impacts of militarization on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Indigenous Peoples’ organizations have long been requesting that this issue be considered by UN human rights bodies. The militarization of indigenous lands and territories has overwhelming impacts in the exercise of our right to self-determination, as it usually interferes with the functioning of our own institutions, the utilization of our lands and resources and the general exercise of our autonomy and self-government.1 UNDRIP recognizes the breadth of these impacts, when requiring military activities to be ‘freely agreed or requested’ by indigenous peoples or responding to ‘relevant public interest’ which, as stressed in the report, must comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality as defined within an overall framework of respect for human rights.2 Even in the case of justified public interest, UNDRIP article 30.2 affirms the need to adequately consult indigenous peoples prior to using their lands for military activities. As the study points out, FPIC is required when military activities may have significant impacts on indigenous rights.3
Without adequate compliance with these requirements, militarization is increasingly taking place in indigenous lands and territories, beyond armed conflict or national security situations. As identified in the report, it is happening in the context of the protection of business operations, conservation and other activities, usually opposed by indigenous peoples and undertaken without their FPIC. IPRI has actively campaigned against this trend, particularly in cases of ‘fortress’ conservation, in Thailand, Kenya, Tanzania, DRC, Nepal4 or India5. We think EMRIP could advice States and other relevant actors to implement the recommendations made in this regard by the SRRIP.6
Military presence to protect these interests often goes together with criminalization and violence against indigenous peoples, including by linking their activities, institutions or organizations with terrorism or other illegal activities.7 We are pleased that EMRIP is advising States to ‘identify and abandon counter-insurgency programmes and counter-terrorism and national security laws that result in the violation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.’ We think these programmes and laws are a source of massive and gross human rights violations, so we hope all relevant UN human rights bodies and mechanisms will pay special attention to the domestic implementation of this advice.
The level of impunity in the case of human rights violations committed by army personnel operating in indigenous peoples’ lands and territories is extremely high, and access to justice in these circumstances is even more difficult, particularly in the case of crimes committed against indigenous women.
IPRI would like to recommend that CEDAW’s General Recommendation number 39 on indigenous women and girls is taken into account in the report. CEDAW stresses the collective harm caused by violence against indigenous women and girls, and its use as a weapon of war and a strategy to control indigenous communities. This collective dimension has to be taken into account, including in the provision of remedy. EMRIP should advice State parties to implement CEDAW’s recommendation in this regard.8
The study comments on the case of Sepur Zarco as a positive example of access to justice for indigenous women. Undoubtedly, the 2017 decision in the Sepur Zarco case is extremely relevant in terms of access to justice and remedy for indigenous women who suffered sexual slavery at the hands of the Guatemalan army during the long internal conflict. But it is also relevant to take into account that the case only got to Court 34 years after the facts, that the complainants and their supporters still suffered harassment and threats during the proceedings, and that the case had to be considered in a High Risk Court. All this illustrate the special difficulties of access to justice in this type of cases.9 EMRIP should advice States to provide for all necessary measures, including special courts and protection measures –individual and collective-, to ensure prompt access to justice for indigenous women victims, their peoples and communities.
EMRIP advises indigenous peoples to make use of the regional human rights systems to bring forward cases of human rights violations in the context of militarization.10 Me’phaa indigenous women Inés Fernández and Valentina Rosendo Cantú, who were raped and torture by Mexican soldiers in 2002 in the State of Guerrero, Mexico, took their cases to the IACourtHR. The Court recognized the responsibility of the Mexican State in this crimes in 2010 decision.
By 2020, 18 years after the facts, IPRI joined a campaign as the decision had not yet been fully implemented. States should be reminded of their obligation to comply with Court decisions, and fight against impunity.
Moreover, EMRIP’s advice to indigenous peoples should be complemented with advice to States and others to provide support for indigenous peoples to be able to access the regional and international human rights systems, coupled with request for States to provide all the necessary financial and human resources to the systems themselves so they can adequately fulfil their work.
We would like to end by mentioning some missing issues we think should be considered in the study.
In several countries where IPRI works, such as Colombia, Brazil or Mexico, increased militarization of indigenous territories is happening in the context of the so- called war against drugs. In some countries and areas in the Amazon, militarization is also expanding allegedly to control illegal logging and mining. There have been claims of collusion of the army and these illegal actors, making the situation of indigenous peoples living in these territories extremely dangerous. In this sense, we hope EMRIP can still pay attention to these specific contexts in the report.
IPRI would also like to suggest EMRIP to include in the report advice on the issue of landmines in indigenous lands and territories deployed by either the army or illegal armed actors, and that are the cause of deaths and mutilations even when the territories have been formally ‘demilitarized’, as is the case in several indigenous territories in Colombia.12
We also think EMRIP should advice States to ensure that any national security forces to be deployed on indigenous lands, undergo adequate capacity building, developed together with IPs, on indigenous peoples’ rights.
Finally, IPRI would like to express concern on a perceived lack of regional balance in the report. In our view, there is little information on Latin America and Africa. We also regret that contributions received are not publicly available yet.
We would also like to reiterate our view that former methods of work of EMRIP, in which reports and advice were developed in a period of two years, allowed for better opportunities for discussions and participation and contributions by Indigenous Peoples, including the possibility of holding discussions at the national and regional levels.
Thank you.
1 A/HRC/EMRIP/2023/2, para 2.
2 Para 10.
3 Advice, para 5.
4 For specific country analysis, see https://iprights.org/index.php/en/en-resources/conservation
5 See Indigenous Rights Advocacy Centre (IRAC) report on militarization: https://irac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMPACT-OF-MILITARIZATION-ON-RIGHTS-OF-IPs_Joint-Submission_India_pdf.pdf pages 5 – 6.
6 See SRRIP reports on conservation and use of military to enforce these activities.
7 India in IRAC’s militarization report: https://irac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMPACT-OF-MILITARIZATION-ON-RIGHTS-OF-IPs_Joint-Submission_India_pdf.pdf pages 2 – 5 and for particular cases military abuse against Indigenous women and girls in India, page 6. See also IPRI’s annual criminalization report: https://iprights.org/images/articles/resources/Annual%20Criminalization%20Report%202022/IPRI%20Annual%20Criminalization%20Report%202022.pdf Pages 47 – 50.
8 General recommendation Nº.39 (2022) in the rights of indigenous women and girls (CEDAW/C/GC/39) 31 October 2022 https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-recommendation-no39-2022-rights-indigeneous See, f.i. paras 37, 40 and 44.
9 https://www.unwomen.org/es/news/stories/2018/10/feature-sepur-zarco-case and https://mujerestransformandoelmundo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/sentencia_caso_sepur_zarco.pdf.
10 Advice, para 23.
12 As illustration for recent incidents, see https://www.onic.org.co/comunicados-osv/4601-gobernador-suplente-de-comunidad-gueiza-sabalo-victima-de-mina-antipersonal and https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/colombia-conflicto_dos-ind%C3%ADgenas-fueron-v%C3%ADctimas-de-minas-antipersona-en-colombia/48257900
