Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
EXTRACT – PRESS
RELEASE[1]
Human Rights
Council adopts texts for protection from Enforced Disappearance, Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
29 June 2006
Extends Mandate of
Working Group on Drafting Optional Protocol
to International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Human Rights
Council this afternoon adopted by consensus the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and recommended that the
General Assembly adopt the treaty.
The Council also adopted by a
roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 2 against and 12 abstentions a resolution on
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Council adopted the
declaration as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of
the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration and recommended
that the General Assembly adopt the non-binding declaration.
Also adopted
by consensus was a resolution on the Open-ended Working Group to draft an
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. The Council welcomed the report of the Working Group with a view to
considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol and
decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in
order to elaborate the Optional Protocol.
Participating in the debate to
adopt the resolutions were the representatives of Argentina, Guatemala, Finland,
Peru, Japan, Algeria, United Kingdom, Canada, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Switzerland, Mexico, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Russian Federation, China,
Philippines, Brazil, Ukraine, Mauritius, Germany and Saudi Arabia.
When
the Human Rights Council reconvenes at 9 a.m. on Friday, 29 June, it will hold a
non-stop meeting until 6 p.m. to take further action on remaining draft
resolutions and decisions before adjourning its first
session.
Action on Resolution on Declaration on Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.3), entitled
Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration
in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23
December 1994, adopted after a roll-call vote by thirty in favour, two against,
and twelve abstentions, the Human Rights Council adopts the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as proposed by the
Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to
elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General
Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 in annex I to the report of the
Working Group on its eleventh session (E/CN.4/2006/79); recommends to the
General Assembly that it adopt the following draft resolution:
The
General Assembly, expresses its appreciation to the Council for the adoption of
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and adopts
the Declaration as contained in the annex to Council resolution
2006/....
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples says indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a
collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as
recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and
individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the
right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their
rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain
and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural
institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so
choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the
State.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (30):
Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador,
Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia,
Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea,
Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switerzland, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia.
Against (2):
Canada, Russian Federation.
Abstentions (12):
Algeria,
Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines,
Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine.
Absent (3):
Djibouti, Gabon, Mali.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), in a general comment,
said enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical
achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of
the indigenous peoples. The adopting the draft declaration would help the
indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all States to adopt the draft by
consensus.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), in a general comment,
said the text was a compromise one which met with agreement with most of the
delegations and most of the representatives of indigenous groups. Switzerland
would have wished for the text to be adopted by consensus, but if this was not
the case, it would vote in favour of the text.
XOCHITI GALVEZ
(Mexico), in a general comment, said that they had finally closed the
circle. They were at an historic point in time, finally acknowledging the
fundamental rights of the world's indigenous peoples. Mexico was prepared to
support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great
deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation
and dialogue had prevailed.
Mexico exhorted those countries that still
had misgivings to vote favourably on this resolution. It was important for the
Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the
world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the
vote, acknowledged the important role that Canada, as well as other indigenous
organizations, had played in the process of the drafting of the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The proposal did not receive the necessary
support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous
representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all
parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues. Canada had
worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and
recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Canada
had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively
advocating Aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to
working internationally on indigenous issues. Regrettably, however, Canada would
vote against the resolution.
AJAI MALHOTRA (India), in an
explanation of the vote before the vote, said India had consistently favoured
the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11
years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of "indigenous". The
entire population of India was considered to be indigenous. With regards to the
right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under
foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this
understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the
draft Declaration, and would vote in its favour.
GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA
(Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said
that Indonesia had been following closely over 11 years the negotiations on this
draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Human Rights Council,
as a new body, had to address such important issues as this draft declaration.
Therefore Indonesia supported the adoption of the draft declaration to protect
and support the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Indonesia was a
multicultural nation that did not discriminate against its population on any
grounds. All of Indonesia's citizens enjoyed the right to equal treatment before
the law.
TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of
the vote before the vote, said that the text did not follow the usual procedure
before it was put as a final text for adoption. Bangladesh was a party to the
International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and
Political Rights and was making all efforts to implement them. Until some of the
articles in the text were not amended, Bangladesh would abstain from the
voting.
ALEXEY AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation
of the vote before the vote, said great importance was given to defending the
rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption by consensus of the draft would
constitute a major step forward in ensuring the powers of indigenous peoples.
Many provisions of the draft were acceptable. The draft should be effective and
an authoritative international document. To date, the proposed text which had
been submitted to the Council did not represent all of these characteristics, as
the text did not enjoy genuine consensus, and had not been agreed on by all
sides. Its adoption would set a negative precedent, and in this context Russia
could not support the draft declaration in this form and in the procedure that
had been used, and would vote against it. However, this did not mean that Russia
was against a continuation of a discussion of the issue, and would work for
international cooperation in the protection of the rights of indigenous persons.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before
the vote, said that China was in favour of the draft resolution under review on
a draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The
adoption of this United Nations instrument would be done after extensive
consideration, China noted. China regretted that this instrument would have to
be adopted by voting, at this very early stage of the work of the Human Rights
Council. China hoped that in the future work of the Council members would
conduct their work in a constructive spirit of cooperation.
ENRIQUE
MANALO (Philippines), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said
the Government of the Philippines was fully committed to safeguarding and
promoting the rights of its indigenous peoples. Because of that commitment, the
Government had enacted a national indigenous people's rights act and had two
autonomous regions in the country. If the draft resolution on the declaration
were to be put for a vote, the delegation of the Philippines would abstain.
CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the
vote after the vote, said Brazil had voted for the resolution, and believed that
the decision was a major achievement which augured well for the Council's work,
and commended States and indigenous peoples who had made great efforts to ensure
this memorable result. The Declaration asserted the importance of the indigenous
peoples in societies, acknowledged diversity as a richness of countries, and
aligned the past and present contribution of indigenous peoples to States.
Brazil recognised the invaluable contribution of indigenous peoples to the
political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development of its society.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of utmost
importance to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples and distortion
created by centuries of discrimination. It would help to create societal
harmony. Brazil had no doubt that the declaration was a reaffirmation of the
commitment of the international community to ensure the enjoyment of indigenous
peoples of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value of
their indigenous cultures and identity.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY
(Algeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said
that he wanted it to be noted that he had joined in the standing ovation that
had marked the adoption of this declaration by the Council. Unfortunately,
Algeria had had to abstain. He would like to plead for this declaration to have
the maximum number of positive votes. In fact, Algeria had numerous indigenous
peoples and had hoped the declaration would have been adopted unanimously, in
which case it would have been able to join the consensus. Unfortunately the
declaration was in conflict with the Constitution of Algeria, which contained a
provision on political parties that stipulated they could not be on the basis of
race, gender, or ethnicity. For that reason Algeria could not vote in
favour.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the
vote after the vote, said the delegation of Japan had been participating in the
Working Group for the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights Indigenous
People for the last 12 years and it had voted in favour of the draft resolution.
The Government would interpret the declaration that the meaning of autonomy that
it might not affect the territorial integration of State sovereignty. Further,
the Government did not recognize collective rights.
SERGIO CERDA
(Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said
Argentina had abstained, and regretted it had not been able to join the
favourable vote. Despite Argentina's clear adhesion to the rights of indigenous
peoples, Argentina regretted the lack of time to deal with certain provisions of
the declaration, which were of particular importance, namely the process of
self-determination and territorial integrity. Argentina hoped that the situation
would be rectified in the General Assembly, and Argentina would be able to vote
in favour there, especially as this was one of the most important and legitimate
topics to be dealt with by the international community.
VOLODYMYR
VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the
vote, said that Ukraine had always supported the elaboration of an international
instrument for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples.
The protection of indigenous peoples was one of the core rules of Ukrainian law.
For that reason, Ukraine had been striving to elaborate an instrument that would
provide the proper balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and those of
sovereign States.
Ukraine said that the document just adopted by the
Council contained important protections for the rights of indigenous peoples,
but it also contained important flaws. It purported to define a right of
self-determination for indigenous peoples. For that reason, and because it
failed to fulfil the need to preserve the territorial and political integrity of
sovereign States, Ukraine could not support it. Ukraine regretted that the text
had been adopted without allowing Member States to improve the document so that
it could reach consensus.
NARSINGHEN HAMTYRAGEN (Mauritius),
speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the declaration
would consolidate the existing universal human rights. It was expected that all
States would contribute in resolving the difficulties of indigenous peoples.
There was a fear that some self-designated indigenous groups might threaten the
sovereignty of a State by following a wrong interpretation of the declaration.
The concept of autonomy should not be interpreted to jeopardize the sovereignty
of a State.
ANDREAS PFAFFERNOSCHKE (Germany), speaking in an
explanation of the vote after the vote, said along with other efforts undertaken
during the past decade to improve the situation of indigenous peoples throughout
the world, Germany had closely monitored the development of the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of the document proved that the
new Council was able to produce concrete results for the benefit of indigenous
peoples, who were entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as
everybody else. The respect and application of existing binding international
human rights law remained essential. The primary importance of individual human
rights protection was asserted in the Declaration. Germany understood the right
to self-determination set out in the Declaration to be a new right, specific to
indigenous peoples, and it could not influence the territorial integrity of a
State. The Declaration, being an important instrument to enhance the rights of
indigenous peoples was non-legally binding. Germany's own national minorities
and ethnic groups, which enjoyed protection of their human rights and
fundamental freedoms, did not fall under the scope of the Declaration.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of
the vote after the vote, said that the United Kingdom welcomed the declaration
as an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of
indigenous peoples, and regretted that the declaration had had to come to a
vote. The United Kingdom felt that its concerns had been addressed in
negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the
provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples
under international law, on an equal footing with all.
The United
Kingdom observed that it did not accept the concept of collective rights in
international law. The United Kingdom clarified that it understood the right of
self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be
exercised within the territory of a State and which was not designed to impact
in any way on the territorial integrity of States. The United Kingdom emphasized
that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the United
Kingdom and its territories overseas did not fall within the scope of the
declaration.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in an explanation of
the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Morocco had abstained during the
vote. The delegation of Morocco would have preferred that the resolution be
adopted by consensus so that Morocco could have joined. Morocco was making
progress in building its democratic system and in strengthening the human rights
of its people.
ADELE WILDSCHUT of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus,
said on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that
the League of Nations had not acted on the demands of the envoys of the Maoris
and others, and the roots of the discrimination went back to the 1970s, a time
when the international community had been prompted to pay attention to the
indigenous peoples in the Americas. The repeated demands for the distinction of
the distinct status of the indigenous peoples had at last been addressed, after
substantive debate with positions that had been consistent with international
law. The international community had been educated as to the status, rights, and
lives of indigenous peoples in every corner of the world. The true legacy of the
declaration would be the way in which the lives of the indigenous peoples would
be affected on a daily basis. It was the implementation of the declaration at
the community level which would have the greatest impact. The States that had
worked with the indigenous peoples would not be forgotten. It was hoped that
each State would stand with the indigenous peoples at the General Assembly.
Indigenous peoples wished for harmony in accordance with the natural world and
hoped that all would be brought together to embrace the positive contribution
that indigenous peoples made to mankind.
