EMRIP, 16th Session || Item 9. Interactive dialogue with the UNPFII, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples Statement by Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 16th Session

Item 9. Interactive dialogue with the UNPFII, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples

Statement by Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)

Dear Chairperson,

Members of the Expert Mechanism,

The Indigenous Peoples Rights International wishes to draw your attention on the increasing reprisal by states on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in UN processes including the EMRIP and the UN Permanent Forum. It should be noted that one of the expert members of the EMRIP was prevented from returning to her home after the EMRIP session last year. Likewise, four indigenous leaders from three countries were also harassed and threatened for their participation in the Permanent Forum last April. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the reported number of reprisal and intimidation against persons and groups engaging with the UN have increased.

It is crucial for the three mechanisms to take a strong stand against these acts and to collectively remind member-states of the UN of their commitments to respect and allow indigenous peoples to participate freely and independently to UN process without fear for reprisal. It is also crucial for the three mechanisms to work closely and systematically with the Office of the High Commissioner and the Assistant Secretary General for human rights in addressing this serious issue of state reprisal.

Indigenous Peoples face repression in their countries and come to the UN to speak and be heard without intimidation. It is essential to maintain an open and safe UN space for the meaningful participation of indigenous in line with the respect, recognition and protection of our rights and wellbeing by States.

Thank you.

1. As the EMRIP’s report makes clear, UNDRIP is presently being utilized, directly or indirectly, by various UN treaty bodies (TB) and special procedures (SP), the regional tribunals and mechanisms (RTM), and national level, including Indigenous governments, legislative, judicial, and other measures (A/HRC/EMRIP/2023/3). The treaty bodies (TBs) and Special Procedures (SPs) are reading UNDRIP conjunctively with the various binding treaties.
2. One effect has been to clarify and strengthen the scope of ICCPR, art. 27 as guarantee for indigenous property rights[1] as well as a new-found willingness to entertain self-determination issues, at least as they may connect to other rights.[2] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights explained in 2022 that UNDRIP represents “international minimum standards applicable to the protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples,” and it will use UNDRIP to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights as it has done previously in its case law.[3]
3. Cumulatively, then, there are multiple “monitoring” bodies in UN system and elsewhere (the ILO is an exception), albeit not dedicated to the UNDRIP as such, and these are presently a “sharp edge” in litigation and advocacy work, etc. Some can do more than merely monitor and recommend (e.g., regional courts that may issue binding orders, noting that there is not one for Asia Pacific). They are not doing so consistently however, including within each TB and across the TBs/SPs. For example, while it could have addressed collective indigenous issues, the Committee on the Rights of the Child processed the case as mostly individual rights violations in its 2023 Camila v. Peru decision.[4] It is important, therefore:

1. That the Indigenous mechanisms are advising the Treaty Bodies, SP, and Regional Tribunal and Mechanisms more directly and regularly, including on specific cases where requested, and beyond the existing dialogue processes; and
2. An assessment of existing activity would allow for the informed identification of extant progress, gaps and obstacles and to what extent additional measures or mechanisms may be needed. The same could be done in terms of assessing the need for a binding treaty.

[1] Daniel Billy et al v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 (22 September 2022), para. 8.13 (ruling that “article 27 of the Covenant, interpreted in the light of the [UNDRIP], enshrines the inalienable right of indigenous peoples to enjoy the territories and natural resources that they have traditionally used for their subsistence and cultural identity”); The impact of toxic substances on the human rights of indigenous peoples, A/77/183 (2022), para. 63 (opining “In the case of the Ava Guaraní indigenous people of Campo Agua’e in eastern Paraguay, the Human Rights Committee recognized that the failure to prevent pesticide contamination of indigenous lands and territories is also an attack against indigenous culture and traditions. In reaching its decision, the Committee relied on the [UNDRIP] to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which gives further normative strength to said Declaration”).

[2] See e.g., Yaku Pérez Guartambel v. Ecuador, CERD/C/106/D/61/2017 (26 July 2022) (concerning state obligations to recognize indigenous legal systems and authorities and to give effect to the acts thereof, all within the paradigm of self-determination and non-discrimination law); Lars-Anders Ågren et al. v. Sweden, CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 (2020).

[3] Differentiated Approaches with Respect to Certain Groups of Persons Deprived of Liberty (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5, 11(2), 12, 13, 17(1), 19, 24 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments), Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, 20 May 2022, para. 285, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_29_eng.pdf.

[4] Camila v. Peru, CRC/C/93/D/136/2021 (2023).