中午
 
日内瓦（2016年9月29日）——人权理事会在午间会议时与土著人民权利问题特别报告员维多利亚·托利-科尔普斯（Victoria Tauli-Corpuz）和土著人民权利专家机制主席阿尔伯特·科沃科沃·巴鲁莫（Albert Kwokwo Barume）举行对话。
 
托利-科尔普斯女士在呈交第三份年度报告时表示，她的主要关注仍然是消除国际和国家层面对土著人民权利的承认和实地落实之间的差距。研究披露的一些案例数量的不断增长令人警惕，在这些案件中，采矿、石油和天然气领域的外国投资导致了对土著人民土地、自治和文化权利的严重侵犯。
 
巴鲁莫先生在发言中介绍了关于健康权和土著人民、尤其是土著儿童和青少年的研究，集中关注了一些对土著人民而言尤为重要的健康方面。他还呈递了一份关于从各国和土著人民处收到问卷答复的更新报告，内容有关实现《联合国土著人民权利宣言》目标可能的适用措施和落实战略的最佳做法。
 
联合国援助土著人民自愿基金主席克莱尔·查特斯（Claire Charters）表示，基金自1985年创建以来，对强化土著人民在对自身十分关键的协商中的参与颇有帮助。委员会成员一直在寻找创新方式，在极少甚至完全不涉及资金问题的情况下为基金受益者提供人权培训，旨在建设能力并确保在联合国程序中的更有效参与。
 
巴西、洪都拉斯、芬兰、挪威和瑞典作为当事国发言。
 
讨论期间，发言人注意到，互相交织的多重形式歧视和劣势令土著人民无法完全参与经济活动。他们警告，国际投资协定和贸易协定限制了土著权利和关于土著问题的政策制定。相应地，他们呼吁理事会支持专家机制，就有关土著人民的经济权能增强问题中存在的挑战和良好做法开展一次全球性研究。在土著人民健康权方面，发言人强调，他们关于健康和福祉的概念比总体社会的概念更宽泛、更全面。发言人希望详细阐述一些关键问题，内容有关土著妇女健康以及如何用最佳方式增强其在这方面主张自身权利的权能。全面实现土著人民人权需要他们参与到所有影响自身的问题的决策中去。
 
代表非洲集团的南非、欧盟、代表拉美及加勒比国家共同体的多米尼加共和国、代表一组国家的澳大利亚、代表北欧国家的冰岛、秘鲁、斐济、墨西哥、厄瓜多尔、利比亚、澳大利亚、加拿大、俄罗斯联邦、挪威、智利、西班牙、委内瑞拉、美国、埃及、中国、危地马拉、爱沙尼亚、新西兰、伊朗、菲律宾、玻利维亚、苏丹、巴拉圭、乌克兰、立陶宛、尼日利亚和国际劳工组织作了发言。
 
国家人权机构全球联盟（Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions）以及以下非政府组织也作了发言：希亚姆酷刑受害者康复中心（Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture）、巴勒斯坦回返中心（Palestinian Return Centre Ltd）、解放组织（Liberation）、全球巴鲁阿组织（World Barua Organization）、伊拉克发展组织（Iraqi Development Organization）、"粮食第一"信息和行动国际网络（FIAN International）、瑞士国际和平团（Peace Brigades International Switzerland）与洪都拉斯大众与土著居民组织民间委员会（Consejo Civico de Organizaciones Populares e Indigenas de Honduras）联合声明、乌克兰妇女组织世界联合会（World Federation of Ukrainian Women’s Organizations）、与发展中国家人道主义合作学会（Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries）、支持公平审判和人权国际理事会（Conseil international pour le soutien à des procès équitables et aux droits de l’homme）、人权联系会（Conectas Direitos Humanos）、哥伦比亚法学家委员会（Colombian Commission of Jurists）、世界公民参与联盟（CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation）、南美洲印第安人理事会（Indian Council of South America）、美洲土著人民国际委员会（International Committee for the Indigenous Peoples of the America）以及印第安法律资源中心（Indian Law Resource Centre）。
 
理事会还将与人权理事会咨询委员会开展互动对话，随后将进行关于人权机构和组织的议程项目的一般性辩论，包括关于农民权利的跨政府工作组报告。
 
Documentation
 
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples (A/HRC/33/42).
 
The Conference has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Mission to Brazil (A/HRC/33/42/Add.1).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Mission to Honduras (A/HRC/33/42/Add.2).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Mission to Sapmi region (A/HRC/33/42/Add.3).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Comments by Norway (A/HRC/33/42/Add.4).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Comments by Belgium (A/HRC/33/42/Add.5).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples – Comments by Tunisia (A/HRC/33/42/Add.6).
 
The Council has before it a Study by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the right to health and indigenous peoples with a focus on children and youth A/HRC/33/57.
 
The Council has before it the Summary of responses to the questionnaire seeking the views of States and indigenous peoples on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies in order to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples  A/HRC/33/58.
 
Presentation of the Reports by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
 
VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, presenting her third annual report, said that 2017 would mark the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples in the General Assembly.  Closing the gap between the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights at the international and national levels and the actual implementation on the ground remained the Special Rapporteur’s main preoccupation.  She had focused her efforts on issues surrounding the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights of indigenous peoples.  The research had revealed an alarming and growing number of cases where foreign investment in the mining, oil and gas sectors was resulting in serious violations of indigenous peoples’ land, self-governance and cultural rights.  International investment agreements could compound to and exacerbate the serious impacts of investment projects on indigenous peoples’ rights.  A system of international investment law could be developed to reduce the risk to indigenous peoples’ rights and serve to benefit them and the State, while providing investment security to foreign investors.  By invoking international human rights law arguments in settlement disputes, States would increase the pressure on investors to demonstrate adequate human rights due diligence prior to initiating settlement disputes.
 
Turning to her country visits, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz stated that she was saddened by the fact that the Nordic Sami Convention had not yet been approved.  She was looking forward to continuing dialogues with the Governments of Norway and Finland.  The report on Honduras expressed serious concern over the grave situation of indigenous peoples there, including the murder of the human rights defender and indigenous leader, Berta Caceres.  It was hoped that justice would be effectively delivered in the case of the murder of Ms. Caceres.  Brazil had a number of exemplary constitutional provisions pertaining to the rights of indigenous peoples, but over the past eight years, there had been a disturbing absence of progress in the implementation of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations.  Brazil owed a historical debt to its indigenous peoples who had suffered marginalization and discrimination since the formation of the State.  Steps taken to protect the rights of the Munduruku were welcomed.  The Special Rapporteur had continued to provide technical assistance to Governments in their efforts to develop laws and policies that related to indigenous peoples. 
 
ALBERT KWOKWO BARUME, Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, introduced the study on the right to health and indigenous peoples with a focus on children and youth, saying that it had focused on certain aspects of health of particular importance to indigenous peoples.  It examined the concept of health and what it meant from an indigenous perspective, reviewed international and regional legal frameworks and analysed the links between the indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and health.  The study also looked into the health rights of key indigenous groups and current challenges relating to indigenous peoples and the right to health, and concluded with the Expert Mechanism’s Advice No.9 which distilled the findings and conclusions into practical measures that stakeholders could take in furthering the indigenous peoples’ right to health.  The indigenous peoples’ right to health was inalienable from their rights to self-determination; development; culture; lands, territories and resources; language; and the natural environment.  The indigenous concept of health was broad and holistic, incorporating spiritual, environmental, cultural and social dimensions in addition to physical health.  The study also addressed the legacy of colonialism on indigenous peoples’ health rights.
 
Mr. Baurme presented an updated report on responses received to a questionnaire for States and indigenous peoples on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Even though the standards of the Declaration were often overlooked and targeted strategies for their implementation remained too rare, there were also many positive practices at the national level that must be supported and replicated.  The Expert Mechanism had devoted a great deal of time to the review of its mandate as requested by the General Assembly, and Mr. Barume expressed satisfaction that the Council would discuss a resolution on the review of the mandate which would hopefully result in an Expert Mechanism that more effectively promoted respect for the Declaration, including by better assisting Member States to monitor, evaluate and improve the achievement of the aims of the Declaration, as set out in the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.
 
Statement by the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples
 
CLAIRE CHARTERS, Chairperson of the Board of the Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples, said that since its creation in 1985, the Fund had become instrumental in strengthening the participation of indigenous peoples in deliberations that were of vital importance for them.  The Fund had given voice to many indigenous representatives at the United Nations who would otherwise not have been in a position to contribute because of financial constraints.  Grantees of the Fund had been able to build networks, exchange information with other indigenous peoples’ representatives and create partnerships with other indigenous peoples, governments, United Nations agencies, civil society and experts.  In addition to providing financial support for the participation of indigenous peoples in United Nations meetings, the Fund also employed resources to build the capacity and ensure the constructive engagement of indigenous peoples in United Nations meetings and mechanisms, as well as to strengthen and support their work back home.  In 2016 the Fund had selected 72 indigenous representatives to participate in the fifteenth session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the ninth session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, multiple sessions of the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review Working Group, and various committees.  The Board had recommended that a budget be set aside to support the participation of an additional 30 representatives of indigenous communities and organizations in sessions of the Council, the Universal Periodic Review Working Group and treaty bodies which would take place from October 2016 to March 2017. 
 
With a view to building the capacity and ensuring more effective participation in United Nations processes, the Board members had been looking for creative ways, with little or no financial implications, to offer human rights training to the beneficiaries of the Fund.  Those training sessions took place in New York and Geneva during the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  In partnership with the University of Arizona, a practical guide on how to engage effectively in United Nations processes and with human rights mechanisms was being developed to support indigenous peoples in their advocacy efforts.  Ms. Charters encouraged all States and other potential donors to consider contributing to the Fund so it could continue ensuring the robust participation of indigenous peoples in international decision-making processes that had a direct impact on their lives. 
 
Statements by Concerned Countries
 
Brazil, speaking as a concerned country, recognized many of the shortfalls pointed out in the Special Rapporteur’s report.  The overall institutional framework had been improved, and in 2016, the National Council for Indigenous Policies had been established.  The Minister of Justice and Citizenship had recently stated his commitment to strengthening support for the indigenous peoples.  Land demarcation and the security of indigenous communities were among the Minister’s priorities; demarcated lands for indigenous communities amounted to more than one million square kilometers.  A key priority for the Government was the protection of indigenous peoples against any kind of violence. 
 
Honduras, speaking as a concerned country, was pleased that the Special Rapporteur had carried out her visit in a free and constructive manner.  There were nine indigenous peoples in Honduras, and Honduras was recognized as a multi-ethnic and pluri-national country.  Honduras realized the challenges it was facing in terms of poverty, inequality, violence and access to the judiciary, which were even greater for the indigenous peoples.  The largest part of the resources was devoted to fighting poverty.  There existed firm willingness to bring to justice those responsible for the murder of Berta Caceres; currently, six persons were under formal investigation. 
 
Finland, speaking as a concerned country, said that the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples were among Finland’s long-standing priorities.  The Government was fully committed to ensuring that the Sami maintained their own language and culture.  Finland highlighted that the governance of natural resources in the Sami homeland took into consideration the right of the Sami people to practice their culture.  The Sami Parliament had nominated its representatives to the relevant advisory committee.  “Language nests” for children, in which all activities took place in Sami, were being developed in the Sami homeland.  Finland included the views of the Sami Parliament as an annex to the Government’s statement to the Council.
 
Norway, speaking as a concerned country, said that the Special Rapporteur had raised several important issues, including legislation on mining, and said that work was ongoing on strengthening and revitalizing the Sami languages.  The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other instruments provided guidance on the obligation of States to consult on any legislative and administrative measures that might affect indigenous peoples directly; however, a general requirement to obtain the free, prior and informed consent could not be derived from international instruments.  Consultations took place regularly with the Sami people, and agreement was reached often, but not always.  What were the key measures that the Government should take with regards to consultations, and were there any easy steps that could be taken in inclusive and consultative processes?
 
Sweden, speaking said as a concerned country, said that the overall objective behind the Sami policy was to promote a thriving Sami culture, based on ecologically sustainable reindeer husbandry and other Sami economic activities.  Sweden wanted to increase the level of ambition and further strengthen opportunities for the Sami people and this also applied to their right to self-determination.  The dialogue was underway with the Sami Parliament on how to move forward on a future Swedish Sami policy.  An analysis had been commissioned on the legal issues arising from the introduction of a national consultation procedure, which would be a step towards strengthening the Sami people’s ability to participate in, and influence, matters that affected them.  Work on a Nordic Sami Convention was central to the Swedish policy for the Sami people, and negotiations on this Convention had been intensified in order to clarify and strengthen the rights of the Sami people to preserve and develop their language, culture, livelihoods and community life.
 
Interactive Dialogue
 
South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, took note of the Special Rapporteur’s view that the definition of indigenous peoples was not officially recognized in international law, but said that this did not in itself imply discrimination or the absence of legal protections.  The African Group recognized the contribution of indigenous peoples to development throughout the world as well as the challenges facing them, including racism and racial discrimination.  European Union asked the Expert Mechanism, with respect to the right to health study, what the key concerns were regarding indigenous women’s health and how they could best be empowered to claim their rights in that regard, as well as asking what forms of cooperation and interaction should be considered beneficial between the Expert Mechanism, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur and other Special Procedures mandate holders. 
 
Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized that indigenous peoples had all human rights recognized under international law, including collective rights.  The Community noted the report of the Special Rapporteur and appreciated the study of the Expert Mechanism on the right to health and indigenous peoples.  The Community attached major importance to the right to health and reaffirmed the commitment of its countries to the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.  Australia, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said that the exclusion of indigenous peoples from participating fully in the economy was due to multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and disadvantage, calling on the Human Rights Council to support the Expert Mechanism to undertake a global study on challenges and good practices related to the economic empowerment of indigenous peoples.  Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, asked the Special Rapporteur for the three most important recommendations for the Nordic countries; the Expert Mechanism was asked what were the most important actions to be taken in order to significantly improve the reproductive rights of indigenous women.
 
Peru reminded that it was a party to the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169 and one of the few States that had adequate national legislation to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples, adding that the Expert Mechanism had to play a bigger role in advising the Human Rights Council.  Fiji said that in many countries indigenous peoples suffered a historical disadvantage in relation to access to services and institutions, whereas in Fiji the rights of indigenous peoples were broadly protected.  Mexico agreed with the Special Rapporteur that international investment agreements could have serious impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples, which was why it was important for States to appoint experts well versed in indigenous peoples’ rights to analyse such agreements. 
 
Ecuador pointed out the primacy of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, which had adverse effects on the rights of indigenous peoples.  For example, in the case of Chevron’s activities in the Amazon region of Ecuador, victims were still waiting for reparations.  Libya stated that all of its citizens belonged to indigenous peoples as the tribes constituted an important social component in the country.  In 2012 a law was adopted which ensured that the Amazigh could set up specially designed schools and receive teaching in their own language.  Australia noted that its international investment agreements and trade agreements did not constrain indigenous rights or policy-making on indigenous issues, and that it had secured specific safeguards in that respect.
 
Canada believed that the mandate of the Expert Mechanism must be strengthened in order to ensure its real impact on the ground and to support the implementation on the ground of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Canada welcomed the attention of the Special Rapporteur on missing or murdered indigenous women and said that a national inquiry was underway.  Russia said that indigenous peoples often lived in difficult-to-access areas, or lived nomadic lifestyles, and States should take all necessary measures to create innovative models to ensure their greater access to health services.  Norway said that the report reflected the situation of the Sami people in a correct way and its conclusions and recommendations would be a usefully tool for the engagement with the Government to improve the situation.  In Norway, attention would be dedicated to the Mineral Act which must be changed in order to meet international standards. 
 
Chile thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report on international investment agreements but regretted that it was not made available in advance and that it was only available in English.  Chile had made sustained progress in improving the condition of indigenous peoples, including through the creation of the Ministry for Indigenous Peoples; other bodies were currently being debated by the Congress.  Spain stressed the importance of the coordination between the Expert Mechanism, the Permanent Forum, the Special Rapporteur and the Council in order to guarantee that the recommendations and good practices identified could feed into all actions at the international level.  Venezuela was concerned that foreign investments and free trade agreements often negatively affected human rights, including indigenous rights, and agreed with the Special Rapporteur on the need for the harmonization of international investment agreements with human rights standards.  Venezuela expressed its support for the mandate of the Expert Mechanism and said that its recommendations provided timely advice to States to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and communities.
 
United States supported many proposals on the revised mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including that the Mechanism should determine the theme of its future studies; should engage with countries to provide technical assistance; and that it should increase its membership to seven.  The United States expressed disagreement with some of the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions on economic issues.  Egypt said that the report of the Special Rapporteur showed that while States had attracted foreign direct investments, some of those had involved gross abuses of the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples; investment activities should not involve human rights violations.  How could States best benefit from the work of the Working Group on transnational corporations to promote the rights of indigenous peoples?  China said that indigenous peoples were equal members of the big family of mankind, adding that China was willing to work with all partners for the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development concerning indigenous people. 
 
Guatemala thanked the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the report on health, noting that it was important to adopt intercultural approaches that respected the needs of indigenous persons.  Estonia welcomed the ongoing cooperation between the Special Rapporteur, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and added that in order to fully implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, all members of society needed to be included.  New Zealand spoke about the national implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which included an exception clause reflecting the constitutional significance of the Treaty of Waitangi to New Zealand.  New Zealand remained committed to strengthening the relationship between the Government and Māori.
 
Iran said that although foreign investments could lead to economic growth and development, the achievement of development had to be consistent with human rights, noting that the full realization of the human rights of indigenous peoples required their participation in all decision-making on matters that affected them.  Philippines agreed that indigenous peoples’ territory and property rights were sui generis in nature, and that they encompassed the territories and resources that they had traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.  Bolivia stated that the concept of health and wellbeing of indigenous peoples was broader and more holistic than that of the society in general.  Many cases proved that some transnational corporations used investment agreements to evade their human rights obligations.  Sudan noted that the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council had been instrumental in the global promotion of human rights, and they had to be provided with adequate funding and be governed by the principles of neutrality, objectivity, non-selectivity, dialogue and international cooperation.
 
Remarks by the Special Rapporteur and the Chair of the Expert Mechanism
 
VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said that her first recommendation was for States to take measures to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Secondly, she urged States to look at their own laws, to see whether those were still discriminating against indigenous peoples. Thirdly, she referred to the Outcome Document of the World Conference, which also ought to be implemented. 
 
ALBERT KWOKWO BARUME, Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said that States engaging in the process showed commitment from all sides.  Regarding the question of whether States had engaged in good practices, he said that the Mechanism’s review of its mandate was revealing how important and wide-ranging the task of identifying good practices could be.  Another question had been what was a practical way to address the right to health challenges that indigenous women faced, especially with regard to reproductive health.  The question should be taken to the capital of the country which had asked the question.  A question had been asked about whether the reviewed mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ought to better work with other relevant United Nations mechanisms.  The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ analytical report could feed processes like the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.    
 
Interactive Dialogue
 
Paraguay agreed that international investment and trade agreements had adverse effects on the rights of indigenous peoples.  It urged the Expert Mechanism to continue examining the issues of interest, namely consultation with indigenous peoples’ representatives.  Ukraine noted that since the very beginning of the illegal annexation of Crimea, the indigenous Crimean Tatars had been subjected to abduction, illegal detentions and imprisonments.  The Russian Federation should allow full and unimpeded access to Crimea by international human rights mechanisms.  Lithuania drew attention to the situation of the indigenous Crimean Tatars who faced growing persecution and whose self-governing body, the Mejlis, had been qualified as an “extremist organization” and its activities prohibited.  Nigeria said that international investment agreements were meant to benefit indigenous peoples, whose territories held the resources, but unfairness in the investor-State dispute settlement process had deprived them from their right to economic benefits.  International Labour Organization stated that in November 2015, its Governing Body came up with a new strategy for reinforced action for inclusive and sustainable development for indigenous peoples.  A key focus of the strategy was building effective mechanisms for consultation with and participation of indigenous and tribal peoples. 
 
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions in a video-statement expressed support for the proposed changes in the mandate of the Expert Mechanism and stressed the increasingly important role of national human rights institutions in the achievement of the aims of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as champions for the human rights of indigenous peoples.
 
Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture expressed concern about the attacks on indigenous peoples of Bahrain, where the persecution of indigenous women was ongoing.  Palestinian Return Centre said that indigenous Palestinians inside Israel experienced consequences of colonialization and invasion of their territories and faced discrimination because of their distinct culture, identity and ethnicity.  Liberation said that 23 August 2016 was a sad day for the indigenous peoples of north-east India who had protested peacefully and yet had been attacked.  World Barua Organization spoke about the problem that indigenous peoples of India faced, particularly in Manipur in north-east India where they had been brutally oppressed and silenced under the name of suppression of insurgency.  Iraqi Development Organization raised concern about the systematic policy of discrimination against the indigenous stateless peoples known as “Bedoon” in the Gulf Cooperation Council: there were some 112,000 Bedoon residents in Kuwait who did not hold citizenship and were considered illegal, thus without the possibility to participate in public and political life.
 
FIAN International drew attention to the plight of the Guarani peoples in Brazil and expressed hope that the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations would not remain a dead letter and that they would provide guarantees for the Guarani people, who believed that without land there was no dignity.  Peace Brigades International Switzerland, noted that indigenous peoples held no prior consultations with respect to the Agua Zarca project in Honduras.  It asked banks to cancel the loans made to the project, and for an immediate investigation of the murder of Berta Cáceres.  World Federation of Ukrainian Women’s Organizations expressed concern over the violence against indigenous women in Crimea.  There had been a significant number of victims because of their pro-Ukrainian stance.  Crimean Tatar activists could not express themselves and were subject to harassment. 
 
Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries noted that consultations with indigenous peoples were not being carried out.  On the American continent there was a tendency to restrict the spirit of consultation, notably by extractive industries.  Conseil international pour le soutien à des procès équitables et aux Droits de l’Homme said that the indigenous peoples of Western Sahara still had not been able to exercise their right to self-determination.  The case of the indigenous peoples of Bahrain was the same.  Conectas Direitos Humanos welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s visit to many areas in Brazil, adding that the rights of indigenous peoples were not being protected, especially their land rights.    
 
Colombian Commission of Jurists expressed concern about the risks that indigenous human rights defenders faced, particularly in the context of extractive industries, and called on the Council to impress upon States the need to put in place the necessary conditions for the unhindered work of defenders.  CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation said that deficits in free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities affected by large infrastructure and extractive projects by foreign investors were at the core of countless rights violations, especially in Brazil and Honduras, which had the highest number of killings of environmental human rights defenders in the world.  Indian Council of South America said that the Expert Mechanism must be able to receive communications and make recommendations to other bodies with the mandate holders for indigenous peoples without the consent of States – this was necessary to maintain the undiluted mandate of the Expert Mechanism. 
 
International Committee for the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas said that indigenous culture recognized that everything needed for health grew around them and local-grown food was the medicine for indigenous peoples; indigenous cultural farming practices must be recognized as a crucial foundation to growing health bodies. Indian Law Resource Centre, in a joint statement with Native American Rights Fund, denounced the plans of the oil companies and the United States Government, which did not respect the sovereignty of the Sioux nation and continued the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline which would pollute the river that they depended on and destroy sacred sites.  
 
Concluding Remarks
 
VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said that one issue she had heard very strongly was the implementation of the recommendations that emerged from her report. The implementation of recommendations was still very difficult for most States to do.  Some of the recommendations were “low-hanging fruit” that could easily be implemented; one of them was her call for States to be engaged in productive dialogue with indigenous peoples.  Increasing violence happening in indigenous territories could not be accepted.  There should be a wide-ranging dialogue with indigenous peoples so that it did not reach a stage of violent situations.  She expressed satisfaction that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests had remained peaceful.  On the issue of free, prior informed consent, she said that what was important was that when policy decisions were taken, in-depth consultations should be carried out.  But many indigenous peoples did not have the slightest information about upcoming projects.  She thanked the Human Rights Council for allowing indigenous representative to come and speak, because that was what made the Human Rights Council important for those people.  Between all the panel members, they could not adequately address all the complaints.  Coordination should be enhanced and supported strongly.  Resources would, at the end of the day, be the obstacle for coordination.  She said she had engaged with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization; there was a conscious effort made on her part to link up with relevant segments of the United Nations.  Engagement at the national level would be what would make the big difference when it came to implementing her recommendations. 
 
ALBERT KWOKWO BARUME, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in his concluding remarks, said that the inclusion of country engagement in the mandate of the Expert Mechanism would be critical and would focus on two key pillars, namely awareness raising and building capacity.  The Expert Mechanism was very appreciative of States which realized the gap in the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and brought it up in the relevant fora.  The Expert Mechanism would also seek to engage national human rights institutions through those activities of awareness raising and capacity building.  Mr. Barume welcomed the positive engagement of the African Group on indigenous peoples issues, which represented a positive change in the African continent.  The last five years had seen the passing of the first law on indigenous peoples on the continent, which was a key milestone in preventing debate and controversy over the question of who indigenous peoples and first inhabitants of the continent were.  The constructive engagement of the continent reflected that positive trend, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights had managed to specify what indigenous peoples meant and did not mean in Africa – it was thanks to this pioneering step that countries such as Congo could adopt the necessary laws.  Finally, the Chairperson-Rapporteur reflected on what was expected of the Expert Mechanism and said that it aimed to provide Member States with more elaboration on what the different rights guaranteed in the Declaration and international instruments entailed.  And that was what the Expert Mechanism had done.  The reports of the Expert Mechanism were intended to provide guidance to policy makers, public service providers and institutions at the national level.

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record