June 29, 2006
Human Rights Council adopts
Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
good news!: The United Nations Human Rights Council has voted to adopt
the Indigenous declaration. 30 States were in favour, 2 States (Canada
and Russia) were against, 12 abstained and 3 were absent.
There was a standing ovation after the vote.
_______________________________
UNOG
THE UNITED NATIONS
OFFICE AT GENEVA
News & Media
Complete text at:
http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/BE82C
77003776B9EC125719C005D5994?OpenDocument
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS TEXTS FOR PROTECTION FROM ENFORCED DISPPEARANCE, RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Extends Mandate of Working Group on Drafting Optional Protocol to
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
29 June 2006
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 Convention on Protection from Enforced
Disappearance
[TEXT DELETED]
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.
Action on Resolution on Working Group on Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[TEXT DELETED]
* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record
HRHRC06026E
Here is the closing statement presented by Indigenous Peoples:
---
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS CLOSING STATEMENT
On behalf of the Indigenous Caucus, on this momentous occasion, we
would like to express our heartfelt thoughts on the adoption of the
Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The League of Nations did not act on the demands of the diplomatic
envoys of the Maori and the Iroquois Confederacy, so the roots of the
present Declaration go back to 1974 and the voluminous Cobo report.
In 1977, the pivotal gathering of Indigenous peoples here at the United
Nations prompted the world community to turn their attention to
Indigenous Peoples in the Americas.
In this context, the important recommendation to establish the Working
Group on Indigenous Populations was made.
The significant work of the five independent experts of the WGIP, two
of whom are with us today, Erica Irene Daes and Miguel Alfonso
Martinez, reflect that our repeated demands for recognition of our
distinct status and rights would be addressed.
We persisted in our efforts and remained vigilant against some of the
most formidable state forces in the world.
We relied upon our ability to engage in substantive debate, with
positions that remain consistent with international law.
One of the most important outcomes has been that throughout all of our
expressions, sometimes in our own languages, we have succeeded in
educating the international community about the status, rights and
lives of Indigenous peoples in every corner of world.
We will continue to do so in the Permanent Forum. The true legacy of
the Declaration will be the way in which we, the Indigenous peoples of
the world, in partnership with states, breathe life into these words.
The real test will be how this will affect the lives of our people on a
daily basis.
While these are distinct and fundamental individual and collective
human rights, it is their implementation at the community level, which
will have an impact and give our children hope for a future where their
lives and identity will be respected globally.
It would be unfair for us to name States that have played a leading
role in reaching this point.
They know who they are and we know who they are.
They have worked with us to ensure the realization of this important
human rights instrument.
We will not forget them and we will ask our people to honor them.
We trust that each of you will stand with us at the General Assembly as
well.
Finally, we must express our thanks to Chairperson-Rapporteur Chavez
for staunch efforts to reach a conclusion with this text. His patience
to ensure that States and Indigenous Peoples could contribute
effectively and equitably to the final outcome deserves our praise.
We express our wish as Indigenous Peoples for harmony in accordance
with the natural world and hope that our multiple futures as Indigenous
Peoples and States are brought together to embrace the positive
contribution that we make to humankind.
Very rarely... and only once in a while.... worldwide good news....like
this. Have a good day,
Tia Oros Peters
Executive Director
Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development
ph: 707-825-7640 fax: 707-825-7639
|
![==[+]==========[+]==========[+]==](./images/sqrdotbr.gif){kind=small}