INDIGENOUS AND TRIBAL PEOPLES’ RIGHTS OVER THEIR

ANCESTRAL LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES

 

Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System

 

I.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.                  Indigenous and tribal peoples have unique ways of life, and their worldview is based on their close relationship with land.  The lands they traditionally use and occupy are critical to their physical, cultural and spiritual vitality.[1]  This unique relationship to traditional territory may be expressed in different ways, depending on the particular indigenous people involved and its specific circumstances; it may include traditional use or presence, maintenance of sacred or ceremonial sites, settlements or sporadic cultivation, seasonal or nomadic gathering, hunting and fishing, the customary use of natural resources or other elements characterizing indigenous or tribal culture.[2]  As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has pointed out, “for indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.”[3]  “[T]o guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to communal property, it is necessary to take into account that the land is closely linked to their oral expressions and traditions, their customs and languages, their arts and rituals, their knowledge and practices in connection with nature, culinary art, customary law, dress, philosophy, and values.”[4]  The Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also concluded that indigenous peoples’ territorial rights are unique, and encompass a tradition and a cultural identification of indigenous peoples with their lands which has been generally recognized.[5]

 

2.                  The right to property pursuant to Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights thus has singular importance for indigenous and tribal peoples, because the guarantee of the right to territorial property is a fundamental basis for the development of indigenous communities’ culture, spiritual life, integrity and economic survival.[6]  It is a right to territory that encompasses the use and enjoyment of its natural resources.  It is directly related, even a pre-requisite, to enjoyment of the rights to an existence under conditions of dignity, to food, water, health, life,[7] honor, dignity, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of association, the rights of the family, and freedom of movement and residence.[8] Throughout the Americas, indigenous and tribal peoples insist that the State “effectively guarantee their right to live in their ancestral territory and thus to not only carry out their traditional subsistence activities, but also preserve their cultural identity.”[9] 

 

3.                  The organs of the Inter-American system have long paid particular attention to indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to communal property over their lands and natural resources, as a right in itself, and as a guarantee of the effective enjoyment of other basic rights.  For the IACHR, “protection of the right of indigenous peoples to their ancestral territory is an especially important matter, as its enjoyment involves not only protection of an economic [unit] but also protection of the human rights of a collectivity whose economic, social and cultural development is based on its relationship with the land.”[10]  The Inter-American Court, for its part, has underscored that indigenous peoples’ territorial rights concern “the collective right to survival as an organized people, with control over their habitat as a necessary condition for reproduction of their culture, for their own development and to carry out their life aspirations.”[11]

 

4.                  This report compiles and discusses the scope of indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their territories, lands, and natural resources. It is based on the legal instruments of the Inter-American system, as interpreted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [IACHR] and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [IA Court] in the light of developments in general international human rights law. It also aims to point out specific problems, guidelines, and best practices to enhance the enjoyment of human rights by indigenous and tribal peoples across the Hemisphere.[12]

 

II.        SOURCES OF LAW

 

A.        Inter-American Human Rights Instruments

 

5.                  In the Inter-American human rights system, indigenous and tribal peoples’ territorial rights are encompassed mainly within Article XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man[13] [American Declaration] and Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights[14] [American Convention].  Although neither of these articles expressly addresses the rights of indigenous or tribal peoples, the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have found that both texts protect the rights that such peoples and their members have in respect to their land and natural resources, that is, over their territories.

 

6.                  In the course of recent years, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American human rights system has contributed to developing the minimum contents of indigenous peoples’ right to communal property over their lands, territories and natural resources, based on the provisions of the American Convention and the American Declaration, interpreted in light of the provisions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169,[15] the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,[16] the Draft American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant sources, all of which compose a coherent corpus iuris that defines the obligations of OAS Member States with regard to the protection of indigenous property rights.  The present Chapter analyzes the legal sources which have been used by the organs of the Inter-American system, and by other international human rights organs and mechanisms, in deriving the basic contents of the right to indigenous and tribal property over lands, territories and natural resources.

 

The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

 

7.                  The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is a source of legal obligation for member states of the OAS,[17] ensuing from their human rights obligations contained in the OAS Charter (Art. 3).[18]  Member states have agreed that the human rights to which the Charter refers are contained and defined in the American Declaration.[19]  Many of the Declaration’s central provisions are also binding as customary international law.[20]

 

8.                  The American Declaration contains evolving standards that must be interpreted ”in the light of developments in the field of international human rights law since the Declaration was first composed and with due regard to other relevant rules of international law applicable to member states.”[21]  The IACHR thus interprets and applies the pertinent provisions of the American Declaration “in light of current developments in the field of international human rights law, as evidenced by treaties, custom and other relevant sources of international law”,[22] including the American Convention on Human Rights “which, in many instances, may be considered to represent an authoritative expression of the fundamental principles set forth in the American Declaration.”[23] 

 

9.                  The corpus of international law that is relevant in examining complaints concerning indigenous territories under the American Declaration “includes the developing norms and principles governing the human rights of indigenous peoples.”[24]  The provisions of the American Declaration thus must be interpreted and applied “with due regard to the particular principles of international human rights law governing the individual and collective interests of indigenous peoples.”[25]  Such norms and principles of international law include precepts on the protection of indigenous and tribal peoples’ traditional forms of ownership and cultural survival and on their right to lands, territories and natural resources.[26]  As such, they “reflect general international legal principles developing out of and applicable inside and outside of the Inter-American system and to this extent are properly considered in interpreting and applying the provisions of the American Declaration in the context of indigenous peoples”.[27]

 

The American Convention on Human Rights

 

10.              Various articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, but mainly Article 21 (right to property), protect the territorial rights of indigenous and tribal peoples and their members.  In the absence of express reference to indigenous and tribal peoples in Article 21, the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have utilized the general rules of interpretation established in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties[28] and Article 29.b of the American Convention.  Article 29 prohibits restrictive interpretations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention (pro homine principle); as a result, the IACHR and the Court have interpreted the content of Article 21 of the American Convention in the light of normative developments in international human rights law regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, including ILO Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the relevant jurisprudence of the United Nations treaty bodies.[29]

 

11.              The IACHR and Inter-American Court also apply the principle of effectiveness, establishing that the distinctive traits that differentiate the members of indigenous and tribal peoples from the general population, and which comprise their cultural identity, must be taken into consideration[30] in order to ensure “effective protection that takes into account their specificities, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, their customary law, values, and customs”.[31]

 

B.        ILO Convention No. 169

 

12.              In respect to the indigenous right to property, the organs of the Inter-American System have expressly used the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169. As explained by the Inter-American Court, “in analyzing the content and scope of Article 21 of the Convention in relation to the communal property of the members of indigenous communities, the Court has taken into account Convention No. 169 of the ILO in the light of the general interpretation rules established under Article 29 of the Convention, in order to construe the provisions of the aforementioned Article 21 in accordance with the evolution of the Inter-American system considering the development that has taken place regarding these matters in international human rights law.”[32]  For the IACHR, ILO Convention No. 169 is “the international human rights instrument most relevant to the protection of indigenous rights”,[33] for which reason it is directly pertinent to the interpretation of the scope of the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples and their members, in particular under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.[34]

 

13.              Most OAS member states with large indigenous populations are now parties to ILO Convention No. 169[35] and the Convention has been an important normative reference during their -and other countries’- processes of constitutional, legislative and institutional reform.  The Convention has also served indigenous peoples, helping them to structure their claims and promote legislative changes consistent with States’ international obligations in the field of indigenous rights.

 

14.              The IACHR considers the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169 a relevant factor in interpreting Inter-American human rights norms in respect to petitions filed against all OAS member states.  As explained in the report on the Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize: “While the Commission acknowledges that Belize is not a state party to ILO Convention (Nº 169), it considers that the terms of that treaty provide evidence of contemporary international opinion concerning matters relating to indigenous peoples, and therefore that certain provisions are properly considered in interpreting and applying the articles of the American Declaration in the context of indigenous communities.”[36] 

 

C.        Other International Treaties and Pronouncements of Treaty Bodies

 

15.              The IACHR and the Inter-American Court may look to the provisions of other international human rights treaties in interpreting the American Declaration and the American Convention in cases that concern indigenous and tribal peoples.  The IACHR has clarified that the provisions of other multilateral treaties adopted within and outside of the framework of the Inter-American system are relevant to interpreting the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.[37]  The Inter-American Court, while analyzing the extent of Article 21 of the American Convention, has explained that it “deems it useful and appropriate to resort to other international treaties, aside from the American Convention (…) to interpret its provisions in accordance with the evolution of the Inter-American system, taking into account related developments in international human rights law.”[38]

 

16.              The IACHR and the Court have also had recourse to the interpretations of the United Nations human rights organs and mechanisms, in respect to the rights enshrined in the international treaties monitored by these organs and mechanisms.[39]  Of particular relevance has been the jurisprudence crafted by the Human Rights Committee in relation to articles 27 (rights of minorities) and 1 (self-determination) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);[40] the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CEDR) in relation to article 5 and other relevant provisions of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;[41] the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comments on several provisions of the ICESCR,[42] and the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[43]

 

17.              Although not specifically focused on the issue, other international treaties incorporate provisions that are relevant for indigenous peoples’ rights over their lands, territories and natural resources. Of particular pertinence is Article 8(j) of the Biological Diversity Convention (1992), which calls on States to respect, preserve and maintain “knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application” with the participation of these communities and for their benefit.  The Biodiversity Convention’s implementation process is equally relevant for the protection of rights associated to indigenous peoples’ property over their lands, territories and resources.  In 2004, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention adopted the “Akwé:Kon” Voluntary Guidelines for the conduction of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments in cases of projects to be developed in indigenous territories, including sacred sites.[44]

 

D.        International Customary Law

 

18.              The Inter-American organs have also identified international customary law as a legal ground for indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to territorial property. In the IACHR’s opinion, there is a “customary international law norm which affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands.”[45]

 

E.         Other International Instruments

 

19.              The IACHR and the Inter-American Court, in their elaboration of the right to indigenous property, view as relevant and important the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[46]  Since its adoption by the UN General Assembly in 2007, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has begun to play a role similar to that of Convention No. 169 as a guide for the adoption and implementation of norms and public policies in the countries of the Inter-American system. Its provisions, together with the System’s jurisprudence, constitute a corpus iuris which is applicable in relation to indigenous peoples’ rights, and specifically in relation to the recognition and protection of the right to communal property.  The IACHR has appreciated, as a legislative advance, the legal incorporation of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into domestic law, and has called upon States to provide information on its implementation.[47]  The Inter-American Court has resorted to its provisions in order to construe specific rights.[48]

 

20.              Inter-American organs have also made reference to the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental liberties of indigenous people.  The Rapporteur’s mandate, established in 2001,[49] infused new support for the right to indigenous collective property into the framework of the United Nations special procedures.[50]  The Special Rapporteur has actively promoted indigenous territorial rights through communications with States, reports on country visits, and thematic reports.

 

21.              Other United Nations mechanisms with specific mandates related to indigenous peoples’ rights have also contributed to international discussions surrounding indigenous peoples’ property rights over lands, territories and natural resources. It is noteworthy to mention the thematic reports of the former Working Group on Indigenous Populations[51] and the diverse reports submitted annually by the members and the Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.[52]

 

22.              Finally, indigenous property rights are part of the array of rights included in the draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  At its 95th session in February 1997, the IACHR approved a “Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”[53]  A meeting of governmental experts held a consultation with stakeholders at the OAS in February 1999.  The experts decided to open a negotiation process to seek consensus, inviting the broad participation of indigenous peoples.[54]  In 2006, the Working Group initiated a final phase for “review” of the text of the draft Declaration,[55] and negotiations on its content are currently unfolding within this phase.  While the provisions of the draft American Declaration related to the rights of indigenous peoples to lands, territories and natural resources are pending final approval,[56] the IACHR and individual members of the Inter-American Court have drawn on these provisions as an expression of an emerging normative consensus around the content of those rights in the context of the Inter-American system.[57]

 

F.         Domestic Law

 

23.              The IACHR and the Court have looked to the constitutional and legislative developments of specific countries, because “the right to property embodied in the American Convention cannot be interpreted in isolation, but rather taking into account the overall legal system in which it exists, bearing in mind both domestic and international law, in light of Article 29 of the Convention.”[58]  The Inter-American Court of Human Rights considers that “Article 29(b) of the Convention … prohibits an interpretation of any provision of the Convention in a manner that restricts its enjoyment to a lesser degree than what is recognized in the domestic laws of the State in question or in another treaty to which the State is a party.”[59]  Accordingly, the Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Convention in light of the domestic law pertaining to indigenous peoples´ rights.[60]

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS | NEXT
 

[1] IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 155.

[2] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of March 29, 2006.  Series C No. 146, par. 131.

[3] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 149.  I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125, pars. 124, 131.  I/A Court H.R., Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, par. 85.

[4] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 154.

[5] Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Decision 2(54) on Australia, par. 4; cited in: IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 130, footnote No. 97.

[6] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 113(a).

[7] IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54, 30 December 2009, pars. 1076-1080.

[8] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of January 31, 2001.  Series C No. 79, par. 140(f).

[9] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay.  Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125,
par. 157(c).

[10] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125,
par. 120(c).

[11] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 146. For the Inter-American Court, “[p]roperty of the land ensures that the members of the indigenous communities preserve their cultural heritage” [I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 146].  Indigenous and tribal peoples have a collective right to survival as organized peoples; when the ancestral rights of indigenous peoples over their territories are affected, other basic rights such as the right to cultural identity or to survival of indigenous communities and their members can be affected [I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125, pars. 146, 147].  The IACHR has explained in this line that the ancestral territory claimed by indigenous communities is “the only place where they will be completely free because it is the land that belongs to them” [IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay.  Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 120(g)].

[12] The present Study reflects the work of three Rapporteurs on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It was approved by the IACHR on December 30, 2009, having been conducted at the initiative of Rapporteur Paolo Carozza, and under the direction of the next Rapporteur, Víctor Abramovich. During its process of editing and updating prior to printing, it received an important contribution from the current Rapporteur, Dinah Shelton.

[13] Article XXIII: “Every person has a right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home”.

[14] Article 21. “Right to Property. 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. // 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. // 3. Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law”.

[15] Convention No. 169 of the International Labor Organization on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989), adopted June 27, 1989, by the General Conference of the International Labor Organization at its 76th meeting, entered into force on September 5, 1991, in keeping with its Article 38.

[16] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly through Resolution A/61/295, 61st period of sessions (September 13, 2007).

[17] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 163. I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, pars. 34-45. IACHR, Resolution 3/87, Case 9647, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton (United States), September 22, 1987, pars. 46-49. IACHR, Resolution 18/89, Case 10.116, MacLean (Suriname).  IACHR, Report No. 48/01, Case 12.067, Michael Edwards et al. (Bahamas). IACHR, Report No. 52/01, Case 12.243, Juan Raúl Garza (United States), April 4, 2001.  

[18] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 163.

[19] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 163. OAS General Assembly Resolution No. 371/78, AG/RES (VIII-O/78), July 1st, 1978 (reaffirming Member States’ commitment to promote compliance with the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man). General Assembly Resolution No. 370/78, AG/Res. 370 (VIII-O/78), July 1st, 1978 (referring to Member States’ international commitment to respect the rights recognized in the Declaration).

[20] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 163. IACHR, Report No. 19/02, Case 12.379, Lares-Reyes et al. (United States), February 27, 2002, par. 46.

[21] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 96. IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 86. I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, par. 37. I/A Court H.R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1st, 1999. Series A No. 16, par. 114. IACHR, Report No. 52/02, Case 11.753, Ramón Martínez Villarreal (United States). The IACHR has explained in this line that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which establishes the existing and evolving obligations of Member States under the OAS Charter, is not to be interpreted or applied with the content of International Law as it existed at the moment of its adoption, but in light of the continuous developments in the rights protected therein under the corpus of International Human Rights Law in its present state. [IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 167. I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, par. 37] The IACHR has also held that in cases were a violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples or their members by State authorities took place in the past, but such violation has had continuous effects until the present, the State is under the current obligation of solving the situation in light of its contemporary obligations under International Human Rights Law, and not in light of the obligations that were applicable at the moment in which the violation took place. [IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 167].

[22] IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 88. IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 96.

[23] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, pars. 97, 124. IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 87. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 28, February 28, 2000, par. 38. IACHR, Report No. 52/01, Case 12.243, Juan Raúl Garza (United States), April 4, 2001, pars. 88-89.

[24] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 124.

[25] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 131.

[26] The rules and principles of International Law on the human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples and their members include human rights considerations related to the ownership, use and occupation of their traditional lands. [IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 124].

[27] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 129.

[28] This evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention is consistent with the interpretation rules established in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States of 1969, by virtue of which the Inter-American organs have applied a method of interpretation that takes the system in which the respective treaties are inscribed into account. [I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, pars. 125, 126].

[29] In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that “human rights treaties are live instruments whose interpretation must adapt to the evolution of the times and, specifically, to current living conditions” [I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 146. I/A Court H.R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1st, 1999. Series A No. 16, par. 114].

[30] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125, par. 51.

[31] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 63.

[32] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 117.

[33] IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay. Doc. OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, Doc. 52, March 9, 2001, Chapter IX, par. 12. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Chapter X, par. 7.

[34] IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 127.

[35] The following OAS member states are parties to ILO Convention No. 169: Argentina (2000); Bolivia (1991); Brazil (2002); Chile (2008); Colombia (1991); Costa Rica (1993); Dominica (2002); Ecuador (1998); Guatemala (1996); Honduras (1995); México (1990); Nicaragua (2010); Paraguay (1993); Peru (1994) and Venezuela (2002). 

[36] IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, footnote No. 123.

[37] IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 87.

[38] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 127.

[39] In the case of the Saramaka people, the Inter-American Court held that Suriname did not recognize in its internal legislation the right to communal property of the members of its tribal peoples, and that it had not ratified ILO Convention 169. However, it had ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; consequently, the Court resorted to the text of these instruments, as it had been interpreted respectively by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for purposes of establishing the content of Article 21 of the American Convention as it applied to Suriname in that case, reiterating that “pursuant to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, this Court may not interpret the provisions of Article 21 of the American Convention in a manner that restricts its enjoyment and exercise to a lesser degree than what is recognized in said covenants.” [I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 93]  See, in general: UN – Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (Mr. James Anaya), UN Doc. A/HRC/9/9 (August 11, 2008), pars. 20-30.

[40] In its General Comment on Article 27 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee expressly linked States’ duty to guarantee indigenous peoples’ right to enjoy their culture to the protection of their ways of life, closely linked to territory and resource use. General Comment No. 23 (1994): Article 27 (rights of minorities), CCPR/C/21/rev.1/Add.5 (1994), par. 7.

[41] In 1997 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination adopted its General Recommendation on indigenous peoples, in which it set forth, inter alia, the obligations of States Parties in relation to the protection of indigenous lands and territories, and underscored the right of indigenous peoples to “to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources.” General Recommendation XXIII: Indigenous Peoples, CERD/C/51/Misc. 23/rev. 1 (1997), para. 5.

[42] Several of the general comments by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are of special relevance for the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, and natural resources. See, e.g., General Comment No. 7 (1997): The right to adequate housing: forced evictions (Article 11(1)), E/1998/22, annex IV, para. 10; General Comment No. 12 (1999): The right to adequate food (Article 11), E/C.12/1999/5, para. 13; General Comment No. 14 (2000), The right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12), E/C.12/2000/4, paras. 12(b) and 27; General Comment No. 15 (2002): The right to water (Articles 11 and 12) E/C.12/2002/11, paras. 7, 16. 

[43] The Committee has linked the rights of indigenous children to the protection of the property rights of their communities and peoples: “the right [of the child], in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion or to use his or her own language … may be closely associated with the use of traditional territory and the use of its resources”. General Comment No. 11 (2009):  Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, CRC/C/GC/11 (2009), par. 16.

[44] Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities, COP-7 (Kuala Lumpur, February 9-20, 2004), Decision VII/16, Annex [“Akwé: Kon Guidelines”]. 

[45] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Awas Tingni community v. Nicaragua. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of August 31, 2001.  Series C No. 79, par. 140(d). 

[46] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly by Resolution A/61/295, 61st period of sessions (September 13, 2007).

[47] IACHR, Follow-up Report - Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road towards Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, par. 134.

[48] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname.  Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 131.

[49] Resolution 2001/57 of the Commission on Human Rights: “Human rights and indigenous issues” (April 24, 2001). 

[50] Resolution 6/12 of the Human Rights Council: “Human rights and indigenous peoples:  mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people” (September 28, 2007).

[51] See e.g. Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land:  Final working paper prepared by the Special Rapporteur Mrs. Erica-Irene Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21 (June 11, 2001); Indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources: Final report of the Special Rapporteur, Mrs. Erica-Irene Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/30 (July 13, 2004). Legal commentary on the concept of free, prior and informed consent: Expanded working paper submitted by Ms. Antoanella-Julia Motoc and the Tebtebba Foundation offering guidelines to govern the practice of implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in relation to development affecting their lands and natural resources, E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2005/WP.1 (July 14, 2005).

[52] See, e.g. Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples, E/C.19/2005/3 (February 17, 2005).

[53] Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 26, 1997, at its 133rd session, 95th regular session, CP/doc.2878/97 corr. 1.

[54] Resolution of the General Assembly of the OAS AG/RES. 1610 (XXIX-O/99): “Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (June 7, 1999). 

[55] Procedure for promptly concluding negotiations in the quest for points of consensus of the Working Group to prepare the draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, OEA/Ser.K/XVI, GT/DADIN/doc.246/06 rev. 7 (November 27, 2006).

[56] As of the writing of this report, the articles of the draft American Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to the land, territories, and natural resources are still pending approval.  See more information at: http://www.oas.org/dil/indigenous_peoples_preparing_draft_american_declaration.htm .

[57] Separate opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez in Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, August 31, 2001, para. 8. Dann case, para. 129; Case of Maya Communities, para. 118.

[58] IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Yakye Axa community v. Paraguay. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.  Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of June 17, 2005.  Series C No. 125, par. 120(a).

[59] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname.  Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of November 28, 2007.  Series C No. 172, par. 92.

[60] I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname.  Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.  Judgment of November 28, 2007.  Series C No. 172, par. 92.