The Indigenous World 2026: Work of the UN Treaty Bodies and Indigenous Peoples' Rights
The treaty bodies[1] are committees of independent experts that monitor the implementation of rights protected under international human rights treaties by States parties. There are nine core international human rights treaties that address: civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights; racial discrimination; torture; discrimination against women; children’s rights; migrant workers’ rights; the rights of persons with disabilities; and enforced disappearances. The main functions of the treaty bodies are to examine periodic reports submitted by States parties and consider individual complaints. Concluding observations review both positive and negative aspects of a State’s implementation of treaty provisions and include recommendations for improvement. Treaty bodies also adopt general comments or recommendations, which interpret treaty provisions to guide States parties in their obligations. To date, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have adopted general comments, also called recommendations, that specifically address the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This article provides an overview of references made by treaty bodies to Indigenous Peoples and to groups that self-identify as such in their concluding observations, general comments and decisions or views over the year, with a focus on five treaty bodies: CERD; the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR); the Human Rights Committee (CCPR); CEDAW; and the CRC.[2] During the year 2025, the treaty bodies adopted 103 concluding observations, 124 lists of issues and lists of issues prior to reporting, three new general comments and recommendations and 276 decisions or views, including four concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples and individuals. Under its early warning measures and urgent procedures, CERD adopted one decision and sent eight communications related to Indigenous rights.
This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here
Summary of concluding observations addressed to the States parties under review
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
CERD underlined multiple forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous Peoples and other groups who self-identify as such in Gabon,[3] Ukraine,[4] Burundi,[5] Guatemala,[6] New Zealand,[7] Sweden,[8] and Tunisia [9], hate crimes and hate speech targeting Indigenous Peoples in New Zealand, Guatemala, and Sweden; and racially motivated physical attacks targeting Indigenous Peoples in New Zealand and Sami children in Swedish schools. CERD highlighted the difficulties Indigenous Peoples face in accessing education, healthcare services, employment (Gabon, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, Sweden, and Tunisia), adequate housing (New Zealand, Sweden, and Ukraine), and food in New Zealand and Guatemala, and emphasised high rates of poverty (Gabon, Burundi, Guatemala, and New Zealand) and social exclusion (Gabon and Guatemala). The Committee also highlighted a lack of access to education in Indigenous languages (Ukraine, Sweden, New Zealand, and Tunisia), a lack of protection of intellectual and cultural property rights in New Zealand and Guatemala and barriers to the birth registration of newborns with Amazigh names in Tunisia and to the free broadcasting of Indigenous radio stations in Guatemala.
CERD emphasised the underrepresentation and lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples in political and public life (Gabon, Ukraine, Burundi, and Guatemala), the overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system and foster/residential care in New Zealand and difficulties in accessing justice in Gabon, Guatemala, and Burundi, particularly for victims of the armed conflict in Guatemala and atrocities in Burundi. CERD also noted limited progress in implementing the Peace Agreements in Guatemala and the limited scope of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Burundi as well as the disproportionate impact of the armed conflict on Indigenous Peoples in Ukraine. CERD also noted the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials and the misuse of the criminal justice system to criminalise Indigenous leaders and human rights defenders in Guatemala, and acts of violence, threats and reprisals against human rights and environmental defenders in Gabon, Guatemala, and New Zealand, violence against Indigenous spiritual leaders in Guatemala and sexual and gender-based violence (Guatemala, New Zealand, and Sweden).
CERD expressed concerns about the weakening of the institutional framework protecting Māori in New Zealand, the lack of a legislative framework recognising and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Gabon and Burundi, and discrepancies in Ukraine's legislative framework relating to recognised and non-recognised Indigenous Peoples. The Committee emphasised the negative impact of environmental degradation, extractive industries, energy projects, agro-industrial projects, and climate change on the health, livelihoods, and lands of Indigenous Peoples (Gabon, New Zealand, Guatemala, and Sweden). The Committee also highlighted the impact of recent legislative developments on the right of Māori to self-determination over lands, territories, and resources in New Zealand; the lack of protection of collective and communal property in Gabon and Guatemala; discrimination in women’s inheritance matters in Burundi; barriers to land restitution in New Zealand; forced evictions in Guatemala; and displacements in Gabon. CERD also highlighted violations relating to the right to consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) (Gabon, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Sweden), the non-compliance of legislation related to consultation and FPIC with international standards in Sweden, and the lack of mechanisms to ensure consultation and FPIC in Guatemala.
The Committee recommended that States parties adopt policies and measures to combat and eliminate structural or racial discrimination against Indigenous Peoples (Gabon, Ukraine, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, Sweden, and Tunisia), as well as racist hate crimes and hate speech (New Zealand, Burundi, Gabon, Guatemala, and Sweden), to protect Saami children from harassment and bullying in Sweden, to ensure access to culturally appropriate health services (Gabon, Sweden, New Zealand, Burundi, and Guatemala), food and water in New Zealand and Guatemala, employment (Gabon, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Tunisia) and housing in New Zealand and Tunisia, and to reduce poverty or improve living standards (Gabon, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Mexico). CERD recommended that States parties ensure access to quality education (Gabon, Ukraine, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, Tunisia, and Sweden) in mother tongues and Indigenous languages (Gabon, Ukraine, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, Tunisia, and Sweden), and integrate Indigenous history, cultural heritage, legacies of colonialism, ethnic and cultural diversity into school curricula and educational programmes (Gabon, Burundi, New Zealand, Guatemala, and Tunisia). New Zealand, Ukraine, and Sweden were recommended to revitalise or protect Indigenous languages; Tunisia was recommended to ensure the registration of newborns with Amazigh names; and New Zealand and Guatemala were recommended to protect the intellectual and cultural property rights of Indigenous Peoples. Guatemala was also recommended to adopt a legal framework for recognising Indigenous community radio stations.
The Committee advised Ukraine, Gabon, Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Tunisia to ensure the participation and representation of Indigenous Peoples in public and political life, and in decision-making positions. It also advised Ukraine to consolidate the legal status of the representative bodies of all Indigenous Peoples. Gabon, Burundi, and Guatemala were recommended to ensure access to justice and Guatemala to incorporate an intercultural perspective into the justice system. Burundi was recommended to ensure that its transitional justice process addresses violations and atrocities committed against all communities. Sweden and Guatemala were recommended to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Tornedalians, Kvens and Lantalaiset, and the Peace Agreements, respectively. Ukraine was recommended to adopt mitigation measures to address the impacts of the ongoing war on all Crimean Tatars. New Zealand was also recommended to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and to reduce the number of Indigenous children in State care. CERD recommended that Gabon and Guatemala adopt measures to ensure that Indigenous human rights defenders are able to carry out their work effectively, prevent institutional violence and end the misuse of the criminal justice system to criminalise Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala. CERD also recommended preventing gender-based violence and protecting Indigenous women (Burundi, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Sweden).
CERD recommended promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples through the institutionalisation and implementation of the legislature’s policy on Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala and through the adoption of a dedicated law in Gabon and Burundi. The Committee further recommended that New Zealand reinstate and strengthen statutory protections for Māori, uphold its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, adopt a national plan of action to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and that Ukraine review its legislative framework to recognise all Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the principle of self-identification. Drawing on its General Recommendation XXIII on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (1997), CERD recommended that Guatemala adopt measures to ensure the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights to own, use, develop, and exercise full control over their lands, territories, and resources and that Gabon and Burundi revise their legislative framework for land ownership to ensure the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights to own, use, develop, and control their lands, territories, and resources. The Committee also recommended that New Zealand respect Māori rights to self-determination and to the ownership, use, development, and control of their traditional lands and resources. Guatemala was recommended to establish effective mechanisms for the delimitation, demarcation, recognition, and titling of Indigenous lands, while New Zealand was recommended to remove barriers to land restitution and ensure the restoration of Māori lands. Guatemala and Burundi were urged to ensure protection against forced displacement or eviction, including through a moratorium on evictions in Guatemala. CERD recommended that Gabon develop a law and that Sweden review its legislative framework on consultation and FPIC. CERD also recommended that Burundi, Guatemala, and New Zealand adopt measures to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are consulted on any legislative or administrative decisions or infrastructure projects that may affect their rights or lands with a view to obtaining their FPIC. Gabon, Burundi, and Guatemala were requested to ensure remedies and compensation for land used, confiscated or occupied without their FPIC. Sweden, New Zealand, and Guatemala were recommended to conduct environmental and human rights impact assessments/studies before economic, infrastructure, natural resource exploitation or any projects that may affect Indigenous Peoples or their lands. Sweden and Guatemala were advised to adopt measures to mitigate the negative impact of development projects and New Zealand to protect Indigenous Peoples from the impact of environmental degradation and climate change.
Human Rights Committee (CCPR)
In 2025, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) issued several recommendations addressing the civil and political rights of Indigenous Peoples and other groups who identify as such in Vietnam,[10] Burkina Faso,[11] and Zimbabwe[12]. Regarding Vietnam, the CCPR raised concerns about the failure to recognise Indigenous Peoples and their right to consultation and FPIC; reports of arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, and harassment; a lack of due process; restrictions on freedom of movement and expression; and obstacles to participation in decision-making processes, access to public services and the practice of cultural traditions. The CCPR also highlighted reports of hate speech, violence, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings against certain communities, including the Fulani in Burkina Faso, as well as the barriers rural communities in Zimbabwe face in accessing justice.
The Committee called upon Vietnam to establish a legislative framework that recognises and protects the status and rights of communities that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples, including the right to consultation to obtain their FPIC in relation to all decisions affecting them. The Committee also called upon Vietnam to guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples and minorities to access public services; to freedom of expression, religion, and belief; free movement; fair trial; privacy; representation in decision-making positions and access to public services and education in their own language. The CCPR also recommended that Vietnam investigate allegations of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and ensure that perpetrators are punished and victims are provided with redress. The CCPR recommended that Burkina Faso ensure the protection of the Fulani people, investigate cases of intimidation and violence, and ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted and victims are provided with reparation and protection. Zimbabwe was recommended to ensure access to justice for Indigenous communities.
Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
In 2025, CESCR reviewed Chile,[13] Colombia,[14] the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos),[15] the Russian Federation,[16] Zimbabwe,[17] Peru,[18] the Philippines,[19] and Rwanda[20] and expressed concerns about the lack of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Peoples (Chile, Laos, and Zimbabwe), difficulties accessing healthcare services (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe), high rates of infant or maternal mortality in Rwanda and Peru, mental health conditions in Colombia, HIV in Peru, food insecurity and malnutrition in Chile and Rwanda, limited access to water in Colombia and Chile, high rates of poverty and extreme poverty (Chile, Colombia, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda,) unemployment in Chile and Peru; child marriage in Laos; sexual abuse in Peru; the use of children by armed groups and the trafficking of women and girls in Colombia. CESCR also highlighted barriers to accessing education (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda) particularly with regard to Indigenous languages (Zimbabwe, Laos, and Chile), the risk of Indigenous languages disappearing (Chile, the Russian Federation, and Peru), the lack of protection for Indigenous Peoples' cultural rights in Colombia, restrictions on traditional subsistence activities in the Russian Federation, the lack of regulation of the use and cultivation of the coca leaf in Colombia, and underrepresentation in decision-making bodies in the Russian Federation and the Philippines.
The Committee expressed concerns over the impact of armed conflicts in Colombia and the Philippines, and of states of emergency on Indigenous women and children in Chile. The Committee also expressed concern over threats, attacks and/or acts of violence, repression, harassment and reprisals against Indigenous Peoples' human rights and land rights defenders (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, and Peru), as well as over arbitrary arrest, detention and enforced disappearance in the Russian Federation and Laos, and extrajudicial killings in Peru and Laos.
CESCR noted issues related to land access in Chile and Colombia, land demarcation, titling, and registration in the Philippines and Rwanda, and land restitution in Chile and Colombia, as well as patterns of forced relocation, displacement and land grabbing (Laos, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, and Rwanda). CESCR also highlighted the negative impact of the initiative to amend Act No. 20,249 on the establishment of marine and coastal areas for Indigenous Peoples and of Act No. 31973 on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Chile and Peru. The Committee emphasised the absence of mechanisms to guarantee the right to consultation and FPIC in Chile and Colombia, the failure to respect the right to consultation and/or FPIC (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda) and delays in implementing judicial decisions to safeguard the rights of the Wayúu in La Guajira in Colombia. The Committee also raised issues related to the lack of reparative mechanisms for victims of violations in business settings in the Russian Federation, the lack of clear and enforceable due diligence obligations to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples from high-risk sectors such as mining, energy, agriculture, and ranching in Colombia, and non-compliance with agreements concluded with Indigenous Peoples in Chile. Finally, CESCR underlined the disproportionate effects of climate change on Indigenous Peoples (Chile, Laos, the Russian Federation, and Peru), as well as the negative impacts of mercury pollution, and of renewable energy, water, agriculture, forestry and mining projects on Indigenous Peoples in Peru.
The Committee formulated a number of recommendations covering the economic, social and cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples and called upon Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Laos, and Peru to prevent and combat discrimination, Zimbabwe and Laos to recognise and protect the rights of communities to choose their identities, including the right to self-identify as Indigenous Peoples and Chile to ensure the constitutional recognition and protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. States parties were recommended to ensure access to health care services (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe), in particular sexual and reproductive health services (Chile, Laos, the Russian Federation, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda), mental health care in Colombia, culturally-sensitive health services in Indigenous languages in Chile, food and/or water (Colombia, Chile, and Rwanda), employment (the Philippines, Rwanda, and Chile), and housing in Chile and Rwanda and to combat or reduce poverty (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, and the Philippines). CESCR also recommended to combat child marriage in Laos, to protect Indigenous children at risk of forced recruitment by armed groups in Colombia and to address sexual violence against Indigenous children in Peru. States parties were recommended to ensure access to education (Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda) particularly through culturally appropriate or intercultural curricula (Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Chile) in Indigenous languages (Zimbabwe, Laos, and Chile) and to phase out the practice of boarding schools in Laos. States parties were also recommended to protect and preserve Indigenous languages (Russian Federation, Chile, and Peru), cultural rights and the diversity of Indigenous Peoples (Chile, Peru, Colombia, Laos, and Zimbabwe) particularly their traditional and culturally-rooted subsistence activities in the Russian Federation and Peru, to ensure that regulations for the use and cultivation of coca leaf benefit Indigenous culture in Colombia, and to guarantee access to sacred, religious and cultural sites and allow Indigenous persons deprived of their liberty to practice their spiritual and religious customs and ceremonies in Chile.
The Philippines was asked to mitigate the impacts of armed conflicts, Colombia to implement the territorial development plans of the Peace Agreement and Chile to ensure that criminal law is not used to criminalise Indigenous rights defenders and that human rights violations committed during states of emergency are prevented and investigated. Colombia, Chile, Laos, the Russian Federation, and Peru were asked to establish or strengthen norms or policies to protect Indigenous human rights defenders, investigate violations against them, prosecute perpetrators, and ensure reparations. Colombia was recommended to develop a policy on collective protection, taking into account ethnic perspectives, while Peru was advised to guarantee access to justice in Indigenous languages.
The Committee recommended that the Russian Federation, Chile, Rwanda, Colombia, Laos, Zimbabwe, and the Philippines recognise and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to own, use, control, and develop their lands; that Peru guarantee the protection of reserves occupied by Indigenous Peoples living in situations of isolation and initial contact; that Chile guarantee Indigenous Peoples’ access to their marine resources and means of subsistence, including fishing; that Colombia and Peru address land dispossession and land grabbing. Colombia, Chile, and Rwanda were recommended to ensure land titling, registration, and demarcation; the Philippines was requested to repeal or amend legislation that undermines the right of Indigenous Peoples to land use; and Chile and Colombia were advised to expedite the restitution of Indigenous lands, particularly for Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact. Chile, Colombia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Peru, the Philippines, and Rwanda were advised to establish mechanisms and or adapt legislation to guarantee the right to consultation and FPIC, including the right to grant or withhold FPIC in Chile and Colombia, regarding legislative or administrative measures and projects that may affect the rights or territories of Indigenous Peoples.
Colombia, Peru, the Russian Federation, the Philippines, and Chile were recommended to ensure that companies exercise human rights due diligence and/or are held accountable for violations of the economic, social, and cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples and to ensure access to remedies and reparations for victims. Colombia was recommended to adopt legislation providing for the suspension of permits for businesses that promote or facilitate human rights violations, and to prohibit their activities. Chile, Laos, and Peru were invited to draft guidelines and rules for evaluating the impact of natural resource exploitation on Indigenous territories. Colombia was encouraged to fully implement the judgment regarding the rights of the Wayúu Indigenous Peoples, and Peru was recommended to ensure that environmental and human rights impact assessments are carried out, and that action is taken against environmental pollution. The Russian Federation was recommended to phase out carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and Chile to introduce substantive guarantees for communities and the environment in the implementation of the Framework Act on Climate Change (Act No. 21,455). Chile, Laos, the Russian Federation, Peru, and the Philippines were recommended to develop plans and take measures to address and mitigate the effects of climate change and/or natural disasters, taking into account the needs of Indigenous communities.
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
CEDAW made several references to intersectional discrimination faced by Indigenous women and girls in Botswana,[21] Fiji,[22] Mexico,[23] the Solomon Islands,[24] Thailand,[25] Tuvalu,[26] Belize,[27] Congo,[28] Sri Lanka,[29] the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC),[30] and Nepal[31] in relation to access to health services (Botswana, Belize, Tuvalu, Nepal, Thailand, and Mexico), including sexual and reproductive health services (Mexico, Thailand, Belize, Nepal, and Congo) and to birth registrations in Thailand, Mexico, and Congo. CEDAW also expressed concerns about high rates of obstetric violence in Mexico and Nepal, maternal mortality in Mexico and Belize, and child marriage in Botswana, poverty (Mexico, Congo, and Thailand), and limited access to food and water in Congo, formal employment in Thailand, Nepal, and Mexico, and education (Congo, Belize, Fiji, Tuvalu, Nepal, Thailand, and Mexico). CEDAW expressed concerns about the institutionalisation of Indigenous girls in Botswana, gender-based violence (Congo, Nepal, and Thailand), violence, threats, reprisals, and criminalisation faced by Indigenous women human rights defenders in Thailand and Congo, and the lack of protection for Indigenous women exposed to conflict in DRC. Barriers to access to justice and/or legal aid were also raised, as were the exclusion or underrepresentation of Indigenous women in public and political life, and in decision-making positions (Mexico, Thailand, Congo, Nepal, Belize, and Solomon Islands).
CEDAW expressed concerns about the lack of recognition of Indigenous women’s collective rights to self-determination in the Nepalese Constitution, limited land ownership and control in Mexico, Nepal, and Botswana and forced evictions in Thailand. CEDAW also highlighted delays in implementing two land rights decisions in Belize and Botswana, as well as the lack of Indigenous women's involvement, consultation, and participation (Nepal, Belize, and Thailand) and of a mechanism to ensure their FPIC in Thailand in relation to projects developed on their lands or decision-making procedures. CEDAW underscored the adverse impact of extractive industries in Congo, climate change and environmental degradation (Mexico, Nepal, Tuvalu, and Congo) on Indigenous women.
Drawing on its general recommendation No. 39 (2022) on the rights of Indigenous women and girls, CEDAW emphasised the need for measures, including temporary special measures, to eliminate discrimination against Indigenous women in most of the States reviewed. CEDAW notably recommended strengthening legislative protections against intersecting discrimination (Belize, Nepal, and Mexico), promoting economic empowerment (Mexico and Nepal) and ensuring equal access to employment (Tuvalu, Mexico, Botswana, and Thailand), and health care services (Mexico, Botswana, and Nepal), including sexual and reproductive health services (Thailand, Belize, Nepal, and Congo) through the provision of interpretation in Indigenous languages and mobile services in remote areas in Mexico. CEDAW also recommended ensuring access to birth registration (Thailand, Mexico, and Congo) and eliminating or punishing obstetric violence in Nepal and Mexico, forced sterilisation in Mexico and maternal mortality in Mexico and Belize, as well as preventing and addressing early and forced marriages in Botswana and Mexico. CEDAW recommended ensuring access to education (Nepal, Congo, Tuvalu, Botswana, Thailand, and Fiji), providing bilingual education (Mexico, Nepal, and Botswana), developing curricula that reflect Indigenous cultures, histories, and knowledge systems, and discontinuing the institutionalisation of Indigenous girls in Botswana. States parties were also recommended to increase the representation and participation of Indigenous women in decision-making positions and in political and public life (Fiji, Tuvalu, Botswana, Mexico, Belize, Nepal, and Sri Lanka), and to improve and remove barriers to accessing justice and legal services (DRC, Congo, Nepal, Belize, Thailand, and the Solomon Islands), particularly by providing culturally appropriate interpretation services (Nepal, Belize, and Mexico). The DRC was urged to adopt a law to protect women human rights defenders, while Thailand and Nepal were urged to ensure that women human rights defenders can carry out their advocacy work freely. Thailand, Nepal, and the DRC were also recommended to investigate and prosecute all acts of harassment, violence, and reprisals perpetrated against women human rights defenders.
CEDAW recommended that Nepal amend the constitution to recognise the right to self-determination of Indigenous women; that Thailand ensure that the draft Act on the Protection and Promotion of the Way of Life of Ethnic Groups protects Indigenous women's rights to self-identify as Indigenous Peoples, to collective land ownership, and to FPIC; and that Botswana and Belize implement the decisions: Roy Sesana and Others v. The Attorney General and the Maya Leaders Alliance et al. v. The Attorney General of Belize and adopt laws and policies to recognise the collective and customary rights of Indigenous women to their traditional lands in Botswana and Belize and of the Maya people as a collective legal subject in Belize. It was recommended that Mexico, Belize, Nepal, and Thailand ensure the participation of, and respect for, the right of Indigenous women to FPIC in all economic projects, climate change programmes and decision-making processes regarding the use of their traditional lands.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
The CRC expressed concerns about the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous children in Ecuador,[32] Honduras,[33] Peru,[34] Brazil,[35] Indonesia, particularly in Papua province,[36] and Norway[37] in relation to access to basic services in Ecuador, water and food in Honduras and Ecuador, education (Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Indonesia, and Norway), including in Sami languages in Norway; health care and social protection (Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Indonesia, and Norway) and birth registrations (Peru and Indonesia). The CRC underlined high levels of poverty (Indonesia, Honduras, Ecuador, and Brazil), child and maternal mortality in Brazil and in Papua province of Indonesia), child marriage in Honduras and Indonesia, as well as the impact of militarisation in Ecuador, and violence in Peru and Brazil on the rights of Indigenous children, including killings of Indigenous children in the context of forced evictions and extractive activities in Brazil. The CRC also highlighted the adverse impact of climate change on Indigenous children in Brazil.
The CRC called upon States parties to increase efforts or adopt policies and measures to combat and eliminate discrimination against Indigenous children (Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Norway, and Brazil), address child poverty (Honduras, Brazil, and Indonesia); child marriage (Honduras and Peru); child labour (Ecuador) and ensure access to water and food (Honduras, Ecuador, and Peru); healthcare services (Honduras, Peru, Ecuador, and Indonesia), in particular culturally-sensitive health services in Indigenous languages (Peru, Brazil, and Ecuador); reduce child mortality rates in Honduras and Brazil; and ensure birth registration (Brazil, Peru, and Indonesia). The CRC also recommended that Norway, Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador and Indonesia ensure equal educational opportunities, including free access to primary and secondary education, teaching of Indigenous history and culture in Brazil, bilingual education in Ecuador and Norway, and the availability of teachers who speak Indigenous languages in Peru.
Both Peru and Brazil were requested to prevent and address violence against Indigenous children. Recalling its general comment No. 11 (2009) on Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, the CRC recommended that Brazil and Norway prevent forced evictions; that Brazil, Ecuador, and Norway put in place measures for the detection of and intervention in cases of conflict in areas occupied by Indigenous Peoples and undertake peaceful dispute resolution. The Committee requested that Brazil complete the demarcation process and titling of Indigenous lands and territories and end the application of the marco temporal (temporal landmark) doctrine. Brazil, Ecuador, and Norway were recommended to obtain the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples including children, before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. The CRC requested that Brazil address environmental degradation, illegal mining, and land exploitation, which cause irreparable harm to Indigenous children’s health, and that Honduras protect the environment and address land degradation and air pollution taking into account their effects on Indigenous children. Brazil was recommended to ensure that Indigenous children’s special needs and views are considered in developing policies to address climate change while Honduras was advised to take measures to adapt to climate change taking into account its effects on Indigenous children. Peru was recommended to involve Indigenous children and take their views into account in consultation processes with the business sector and Ecuador to require companies to undertake assessments of and consultations on the impact of their business activities on the rights of Indigenous children.
Other general activities of the treaty bodies relevant to the rights of Indigenous Peoples
General Comments and General Recommendations
The CESCR adopted general comment No. 27 (2025) on economic, social, and cultural rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development.[38] CERD and the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) issued joint general recommendation No. 38 (2025) of the CERD and general comment No. 7 (2025) of the CMW on general guidelines for eradicating xenophobia toward migrants and others perceived as such.[39]
Individual complaints
CERD adopted a decision under its individual communications procedure in a case submitted against Norway concerning the Sami people.[40] The CCPR adopted three decisions concerning the K’iche’, Ixil, and Kaqchikel Mayan peoples in Guatemala;[41] the situation of Norfolk Island in Australia;[42] and the Sami in Finland.[43]
Early Warning Measures and Urgent Action Procedures
Under its early warning and urgent action procedure, CERD sent letters to Australia,[44] France,[45] India,[46] Jamaica,[47] Japan,[48] the United States of America,[49] and the United Republic of Tanzania.[50] CERD also adopted a landmark decision regarding the rights of the Chagossian people and notably urged Mauritius and the United Kingdom[51] to respect and guarantee the rights of the Chagossian people “to return to their ancestral lands in Diego Garcia Island”; “to self-determination while ensuring their full and meaningful participation in all decision-making processes impacting them and their land”; and “to effective remedies and full repatriation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition”.
Mélanie Clerc (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) is a Human Rights Officer at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is the focal point on Indigenous Peoples in the Human Rights Treaties Branch. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.
Seánna Howard (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) is an Associate Clinical Professor in the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona. She is the Director of the International Human Rights Advocacy Workshop.
Love Ebegboni, Loryn Horstmann, Sean O’Brien, and Joyce Molel are law students enrolled in the International Human Rights Advocacy Workshop at the University of Arizona Rogers School of Law.
This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here
Notes and references
[1] For more information on the treaty bodies and their work: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/Overview.aspx
[2] Due to word limits, the activities of the Committee against Torture (CAT), Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW), Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) were not included.
[3] CERD/C/GAB/CO/10, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FGAB%2FCO%2F10&Lang=en
[4] CERD/C/UKR/CO/24-26, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FUKR%2FCO%2F24-26&Lang=en
[5] CERD/BDI/CO/11-19, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FBDI%2FCO%2F11-19&Lang=en
[6] CERD/C/GTM/CO18-20, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FGTM%2FCO%2F18-20&Lang=en
[7] CERD/C/New ZealandL/CO/23-24, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FNew ZealandL%2FCO%2F23-24&Lang=en
[8] CERD/C/SWE/CO/24-25, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FSWE%2FCO%2F24-25&Lang=en
[9] CERD/C/TUN/CO/20-22, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FTUN%2FCO%2F20-22&Lang=en
[10] CCPR/C/VNM/CO/4, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FVNM%2FCO%2F4&Lang=en
[11] CCPR/C/BFA/CO/2, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FBFA%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en
[12]PR/C/ZWE/CO/2, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FZWE%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en
[13] E/C.12/CHL/CO/5, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FCHL%2FCO%2F5&Lang=en
[14] E/C.12/COL/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FCOL%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[15] E/C.12/LAO/CwordO/1, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FLAO%2FCO%2F1&Lang=en
[16] E/C.12/RUS/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FRUS%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[17] E/C.12/ZWE/CO/2, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FZWE%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en
[18] E/C.12/PER/CO/5, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FPER%2FCO%2F5&Lang=en
[19] E/C.12/PHL/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FPHL%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[20] E/C.12/RWA/CO/5, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FRWA%2FCO%2F5&Lang=en
[21] CEDAW/C/BWA/CO/5, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FBWA%2FCO%2F5&Lang=en
[22] CEDAW/C/FJI/CO/6, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FFJI%2FCO%2F6&Lang=en
[23] CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/10, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FMEX%2FCO%2F10&Lang=en
[24] CEDAW/C/SLB/CO/4-5, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FSLB%2FCO%2F4-5&Lang=en
[25] CEDAW/C/THA/CO/8, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FTHA%2FCO%2F8&Lang=en
[26] CEDAW/C/TUV/5-6, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FTUV%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en
[27] CEDAW/C/BLZ/CO/5-9, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FBLZ%2FCO%2F5-9&Lang=en
[28] CEDAW/C/COG/CO/8, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FCOG%2FCO%2F8&Lang=en
[29] CEDAW/C/LKA/CO/9, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FLKA%2FCO%2F9&Lang=en
[30] CEDAW /C/COD/EP/CO/1, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FCOD%2FEP%2FCO%2F1&Lang=en
[31] CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FNPL%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[32] CRC/C/ECU/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FECU%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[33] CRC/C/HND/CO/6-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FHND%2FCO%2F6-7&Lang=en
[34] CRC/C/PER/CO/6-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FPER%2FCO%2F6-7&Lang=en
[35] CRC/C/BRA/CO/5-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FBRA%2FCO%2F5-7&Lang=en
[36] CRC/C/IDN/CO/5-6, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FIDN%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en
[37] CRC/C/NOR/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FNOR%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[38] E/C.12/GC/27, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec12gc27-general-comment-no-27-2025-economic-social. The general comment notably recognizes that “Indigenous Peoples are among the most affected by climate change, deforestation, pollution and biodiversity loss, particularly in relation to their livelihoods, health and cultural identity” and calls upon States parties to “recognize the inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples to their ancestral lands and territories and their natural resources”, and “fully respect their right to free, prior and informed consent in all matters affecting their rights”. (paras 80 and 83).
[39] CERD/C/GC/390-CMW/C/GC/8, https://docs.un.org/CMW/C/GC/7. The joint document notably recognizes that “the root causes of migration by members of Indigenous communities include systemic discrimination, lack of basic opportunities, violation of their right to enjoy their land and ancestral territories, including by extractive industries, structural and institutionalized violence and the specific impact of climate change” and calls upon States parties to “make the appropriate reforms to policies in order to respect the land rights of Indigenous Peoples, including measures aimed at supporting culturally appropriate reintegration, access to justice, and reparations in cases of forced displacement, with particular attention paid to land restitution and community rebuilding” and to incorporate the rights of Indigenous communities into policies for the eradication of xenophobia. “Policies and measures should be rooted in intercultural approaches and developed in close consultation with Indigenous Peoples, respecting the principle of free, prior and informed consent” (paras 57 and 58).
[40] L.J. et. al. v. Norway CERD/C/115/D/67/2018, 5 May 2025,
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4087631?ln=en&v=pdf concerned the construction of a power station on Sami lands that the Supreme Court of Norway determined violated Sami rights under its domestic law three years after the filing of the communication. Since the Committee found the Court’s decision inferred a violation of the Covenant and there was a subsequent settlement with the government,[40] the complainants withdrew the communication.
[41] 269 members of the K'iche', Ixil and Kaqchiquel Maya Indigenous Peoples v. Guatemala
CCPR/C/143/D/4023/2021-4032/2021, 7 May 2025, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4091787?ln=en&v=pdf. The complainants were family members of Indigenous persons executed or disappeared during the internal armed conflict who remained subjected to extreme poverty and displacement. The Committee found that the continued forced displacement and its impacts on bodily integrity and health, family unity, cultural life, privacy, and children’s rights violated the Covenant. Its recommendations included providing monetary compensation, housing assistance, healthcare assistance, and a formal apology as well as greater efforts to search and recover disappeared family members.
[42] A.B. v. Australia, CCPR/C/144/D/3274/2018, 8 October 2025,
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4090283?ln=en&v=pdf. The complaint alleged that Australia violated the rights of the Indigenous inhabitants to free passage with the adoption of Norfolk Island Amendment Act of 2015 abolishing the island’s legislative body and reducing its autonomy. The Committee found that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claims and, therefore, the communication was found inadmissible.
[43] A.P., T.K., A.M., J.A. and T.V v. Finland, CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020, 10 October 2025,
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4090523?ln=en&v=pdf was filed by five self-identified Sami who were denied inclusion on the electoral rolls of the Sami Parliament, alleging it had relied on an improper review of their ancestry. The Committee found the complaint to be inadmissible due to the complainants’ failure to show that their electoral roll application review was “clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice”.
[44] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks, 12 May 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-australia.pdf. The letter relates to the situation of Indigenous children in the Australian criminal justice system.
[45] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/CS/ks 12 May 2025. The letter concerns the Western Guiana Power Plant project on the Kali'na Indigenous Peoples lands in French Guiana. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-france.pdf
[46] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks 12 May 2025. The letter addresses the National Tiger Conservation Authority’s plans to displace tribal and forest-dwelling Indigenous Peoples in 18 states. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-india-2.pdf
[47] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks, 12 May 2025. The letter involves the situation of the Maroon Indigenous Peoples and threats to their communal forest known as Quick Step. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-jamaica.pdf
[48] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks, 12 May 2025. The letter addresses the construction of a new U.S. military base on the island of Okinawa and its impact on the Indigenous people of Ryukyu/Okinawa. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-japan2.pdf
[49] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks, 12 May 2025. The letter concerns the impact of a proposed mining operation on the religious rights of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-usa2.pdf
CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks,12 May 2025. The letter concerns the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), on the Mauna Kea Mountain in the State of Hawai’i of the United States of America, and its impact on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Native Hawaiians.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-usa3.pdf
[50] CERD/EWUAP/115thsession/2025/CS/BJ/ks, 12 May 2025. The letter relates the situation of the Maasai Indigenous People in Ngorongoro and Loliondo areas.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/cerd/earlywarning/letters/cerd-ewuap-letter-115-tanzania.pdf
[51] Decision 1(2025) 2 December 2025, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FEWU%2F11263&Lang=en
Tags: Global governance
