The Indigenous World 2025: The work of the UN Treaty Bodies and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
The treaty bodies[1] are the committees of independent experts in charge of monitoring the implementation by state parties of the rights protected in international human rights treaties. There are nine core international human rights treaties that deal with civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; torture; discrimination against women; child rights; migrant workers’ rights; persons with disabilities; and enforced disappearances.
The main functions of the treaty bodies are to examine periodic reports submitted by state parties, adopt concluding observations and consider individual complaints. Concluding observations contain a review of both positive and negative aspects of a State’s implementation of the provisions of a treaty and recommendations for improvement. Treaty bodies also adopt general comments, which are interpretations of the provisions of the treaties. So far, 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 specifically addressing Indigenous Peoples’ rights. This article contains a non-exhaustive overview of references made by treaty bodies in their concluding observations, general comments and views to Indigenous Peoples or to groups who otherwise self-identify as Indigenous Peoples, with a specific 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].
This article is part of the 39th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of an Indigenous activist Funa-ay Claver, a Bontok Igorot, standing alongside Indigenous youth activists and others. They are protesting against the repressive laws and human rights violations suffered through the actions and projects of the Government of the Philippines and other actors against Indigenous Peoples at President Marcos Jr’s national address on 22 July 2024 in Quezon City, Philippines. The photo was taken by Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas and is the cover of The Indigenous World 2025 where this article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2025 in full here
The work of the UN treaty bodies and Indigenous Peoples’ rights
In 2024, the treaty bodies adopted 145 concluding observations, and 103 lists of issues and lists of issues prior to reporting. Under its Early-Warning Measures and Urgent Procedures (EWUP), CERD sent 14 communications, including 10 Indigenous rights-related communications. The committees also adopted two new general recommendations as well as decisions, views, and opinions on four individual communications related to the violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and individuals.
Summary of concluding observations addressed to the state parties under review
Rights to self-identification and self-determination
The CCPR underlined the States’ failure to recognize the collective rights and legal personality of Indigenous Peoples in Suriname,[3] Indonesia,[4] Namibia,[5] and Chile.[6] CESCR and CEDAW underlined challenges related to the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ identity in Indonesia and expressed concern over New Zealand’s[7] withdrawal of support for the UNDRIP. CERD expressed concerns at challenges related to: self-identification in Kenya,[8] recognition of Indigenous Peoples as subjects of public law in Mexico[9] and implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights in Ecuador.[10] Finally, CERD underlined challenges related to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination in Mexico and in obtaining autonomous status in Bolivia.[11] The CCPR expressed concerns over France’s lack of progress on dealing with self-determination in French Polynesia[12] and New Caledonia’s[13] organization of the third referendum without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples.
The CCPR called upon: Namibia to recognize certain communities as Indigenous Peoples; Suriname to enact legislation recognizing the legal personality and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples; Chile to ensure constitutional recognition of the existence and rights of Indigenous Peoples; and Indonesia to establish a legislative and policy framework recognizing and protecting the rights of all communities that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples. CERD and CRC recommended: that Mexico[14] adopt constitutional reforms to recognize Indigenous Peoples as rights holders and subjects of public law; and that Ecuador enact legislation and adopt regulations to codify the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples. CEDAW called upon Chile[15] to recognize Indigenous Peoples in the Constitution and New Zealand to ensure its laws and policies are aligned with UNDRIP. The CCPR recommended that France accelerate the realization of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination in New Caledonia and French Polynesia. CERD urged Mexico to ensure that constitutional amendments concerning the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination and lands comply with international standards and recommended that Bolivia adapt its institutional framework to guarantee the rights to self-determination and self-governance of Indigenous Peoples.
Rights to lands, territories and natural resources
The CCPR pointed out the lack of progress made to: amend the Amerindian Act and recognize Indigenous lands in Guyana,[16] and to adopt the draft Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Collective Rights Act in Suriname. The CCPR underlined that laws enacted to protect land rights are inadequately enforced in India[17] while CERD pointed out the lack of recognition and protection of Indigenous lands in Mexico and lack of security of land tenure in Ecuador. CERD and CESCR underlined challenges, including the slow of process of land restitution, in Kenya and in registering, demarcating and titling Indigenous lands in Bolivia, Kenya, Venezuela[18], Honduras[19] and Indonesia.[20] The CCPR, CERD and CESCR underlined patterns of: land dispossession in Honduras, Indonesia, and Kenya; and forced evictions and displacement in Indonesia, Kenya, Honduras, and Ecuador.
CCPR, CERD and CESCR underlined the threats/adverse impact caused by extractive projects (Honduras, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Sweden,[21] Guyana, Mexico, Venezuela), deforestation (Honduras, India, Indonesia), agricultural activities (Bolivia), and wind power (Sweden) on the rights/lands/livelihoods/ways of life of Indigenous Peoples. Both CCPR and CESCR expressed concerns over laws to ease environmental assessment requirements for businesses licences and mining permits in Indonesia, the limitations of the Swedish legal system to hold businesses accountable for human rights abuses abroad, and the absence of a human rights due diligence framework in Honduras and Indonesia. CERD expressed serious concerns about the lack of social or environmental impact studies carried out in Venezuela and Ecuador, while CESCR and the CCPR noted substandard environmental assessments in Honduras and a lack of environment assessments of mining activities in Guyana.
Guatemala,[22] Honduras, Mexico, Guyana, India, Bolivia, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Ecuador were recommended to guarantee the protection and recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to their lands. CCPR called upon Suriname to expedite the adoption of a draft law on the collective rights of Indigenous and tribal peoples and asked Guyana to expedite revisions to the Amerindian Act 2006 to recognize and protect Indigenous Peoples’ land rights. CESCR called upon Indonesia to enact the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights bill in order to simplify the process for recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ lands, while CCPR called upon Indonesia to protect the right of Indigenous Peoples to dispose of their lands. CERD asked Venezuela to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to enjoy their own means of subsistence. The CRC called upon the Russian Federation[23] to facilitate Indigenous Peoples’ access to wildlife and fishing. CERD recommended that Bolivia and Ecuador protect and guarantee the physical and cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation.
CCPR, CESCR, and CERD called upon states parties to: ensure that Indigenous Peoples are not dispossessed of their lands (Honduras, Kenya); demarcate (Guyana, Suriname, Bolivia, Venezuela), title or register (Guyana, Honduras, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya) Indigenous Peoples’ land; and ensure access to justice/remedies for land disputes (Kenya, India, Indonesia), including land restitution (Namibia, Suriname, Ecuador, Kenya). The CCPR, CESCR, and CERD also recommended that Honduras, Suriname, and Kenya implement lands-related judgements and decisions of commissions and courts.[24] The CESCR, CCPR, and CRC recommended that evictions and displacements be prevented in Paraguay,[25] Indonesia, Venezuela and Kenya; ensure that relocations are preceded by consultation/FPIC of Indigenous Peoples (Indonesia, Kenya, Venezuela, India, Honduras) and that victims are provided with redress (Paraguay, Indonesia) including land restitution/compensation (India, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya).
CERD, CESCR and CCPR recommended that states parties: ensure that business entities operating in their jurisdiction exercise human rights due diligence to prevent, identify and/or mitigate risks of human rights violations in Guyana, Mexico, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Honduras; conduct independent studies on the social/environmental/human rights impact of exploitation projects on affected communities in Sweden, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras, Indonesia and Guyana; protect Indigenous rights/traditional ways of life/livelihoods in Venezuela, Mexico and Sweden; ensure access to remedies/compensation in Sweden, Honduras, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Mexico; and ensure that Indigenous Peoples obtain project benefits in Honduras, Bolivia, and Mexico.
Rights to consultation and FPIC
CCPR, CERD and CESCR underlined the failure of states parties to consult Indigenous Peoples and/or obtain their FPIC prior to: the granting of business licences/extractive or development projects in Honduras, Guyana, Namibia, Suriname, India, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Venezuela; dispossessions/evictions/displacements in Indonesia, Kenya and Venezuela; the adoption of legislative or administrative measures in France, Venezuela, Chile, Honduras, and Suriname. CCPR and CERD emphasized that consultation processes to obtain FPIC in Honduras, Mexico, and Bolivia do not meet international human rights standards. CCPR expressed concern over the delay in adopting a law on consultation and FPIC in Ecuador.
The CESCR, CCPR, and CERD recommended ensuring the right to consultation in order to obtain the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples before: granting licences for business activities in Indonesia, Honduras, Namibia, Guyana, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador; adopting or taking any legislative or administrative measures affecting Indigenous rights/lands in Indonesia, France, India, Sweden, Ecuador, Chile, Guyana and Bolivia; displacement/dispossession in Honduras and Kenya; and the militarization of Indigenous Peoples’ lands in Venezuela. The CCPR, CERD and CECSR further recommended the repeal or amendment of legislation that excludes the participation of Indigenous Peoples from decision-making processes in Indonesia and Honduras; the development/adoption of laws/legislation ensuring the right to consultation, with a view to obtaining the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples prior to any legislative or administrative measures affecting their rights in Honduras, Suriname, Kenya, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Mexico; and the establishment of mechanisms guaranteeing consultation and FPIC in Chile, Honduras, Ecuador and Kenya.
Civil and political rights, access to justice
CCPR, CERD and CEDAW expressed concerns over allegations of excessive use of force and violence by law enforcement officials in Venezuela, Mexico, India, Bolivia, Honduras, Brazil,[26] France and Ecuador; the militarization of Indigenous territories in Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador; and reports of restrictions of freedom of movement and assembly in Ecuador and Chile during states of emergencies/exception. Both Committees expressed concern at allegations of summary executions or extrajudicial killings (India, Indonesia, Ecuador); arbitrary detentions (Indonesia, India, Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador); and torture and ill-treatment (India, Venezuela, Indonesia, Mexico, Ecuador). The CCPR underlined gross/grave human rights abuses in Timor-Leste, Aceh and Papua; and in Suriname during the de facto military regime (1980–1991) and its failure to provide reparations.
Both CCPR and CERD highlighted the criminalization of Indigenous human rights defenders in Ecuador, Honduras and Indonesia; allegations of: acts of violence/attacks in Ecuador, Honduras, Venezuela, and Mexico; killings in Ecuador and Honduras; threats or harassment in Ecuador, Honduras, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia, and Indonesia; arbitrary/unlawful detentions and improper abuse/use of judicial proceedings against human rights defenders in Venezuela, Bolivia, France, and Ecuador; and reprisals in Indonesia and Ecuador.
Both CCPR and CERD underlined challenges related to access to justice in Guyana, Honduras, Surinam, Kenya, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador; lack of: adequate intercultural perspective within the Mexican judicial system, adequate coordination between the ordinary justice system and the Indigenous justice system in Ecuador, and recognition of the procedures of the Indigenous justice system in the ordinary justice system in Bolivia, as well as limited progress made towards the adoption of the law on special Indigenous courts in Venezuela and the bill on the implementation of Indigenous justice in Ecuador. CCPR further underlined the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in prisons in New Caledonia and Chile.
CESCR and CERD recommended that Indonesia and Ecuador prevent orcease the deployment of military forces in development/extractive projects. CERD and CCPR recommended Venezuela, Mexico, and India investigate all allegations of abuse committed by military forces. CCPR called upon Chile to ensure that measures imposed during a state of emergency are proportionate and strictly necessary and asked India to ensure that its counter-terrorism legislation complies fully with the principles of legal certainty, predictability, necessity, and proportionality. CERD requested that Ecuador ensure its regulations governing states of emergency comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. CCPR requested that France ensure all alleged cases of excessive use of force during the demonstrations in New Caledonia be investigated and prosecuted and that victims receive reparations. CCPR called for State accountability, including investigation and reparations for past serious human rights violations in Suriname and India.
CERD and CCPR recommended Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador adopt laws and policies to protect human rights defenders. CESCR recommended that states parties ensure Indigenous human rights defenders are not criminalized for carrying out their work in Indonesia. States parties were advised to: adopt programmes/policies to prevent criminalization/violence or threats against Indigenous human rights defenders and to guarantee their protection (Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras); investigate all cases of intimidation/violence/reprisals/use of force (Honduras, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia); address the disproportionate abuse/arbitrary use of criminal proceedings (Bolivia, Ecuador); ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice (Honduras, Mexico, Ecuador, Indonesia, Venezuela); and ensure remedies/reparation for victims (Honduras, Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela).
CCPR called upon Honduras, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Guyana to guarantee access to justice for Indigenous Peoples, including the provision of legal services in Indigenous languages or through the use of interpreters (Honduras, Ecuador) and urged Suriname to decentralize the judicial system with a particular emphasis on addressing challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples. CERD called upon Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela to incorporate an intercultural perspective into the justice system and increase the availability of interpreters and legal counsel with knowledge of Indigenous cultures, and advised Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela to recognize Indigenous justice systems. CERD also recommended the adoption of the Organic Act on the Implementation of Indigenous Justice in Ecuador and a law on special Indigenous courts in Venezuela and called for coordination between the Indigenous and State justice systems in Bolivia and Mexico. CERD further called upon Ecuador and Venezuela, respectively, to adopt “differentiated measures” taking “into account the cultural and religious practices of” Indigenous persons deprived of liberty, while CCPR called upon France to use alternative measures that enable Indigenous persons to serve criminal sentences in their community.
Rights to equality, non-discrimination and participation
The Committees underlined multiple forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous Peoples in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Namibia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador; high levels of poverty in Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Ecuador; as well as challenges related to access to: education in Mexico, Namibia, Venezuela, and Bolivia; employment/labour market in Mexico, Namibia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador; and health services in Mexico, Namibia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Indonesia and Ecuador. The Committees further underlined the lack of inclusion/low level of Indigenous participation/representation in political life and public affairs in Namibia, Suriname, France, Mexico, and Ecuador. CERD highlighted the adoption of some special regulations restricting Indigenous political participation in Venezuela.
CERD recommended that Mexico and Bolivia develop and implement guidelines to combat structural and institutional racism; that Mexico, Venezuela, and Ecuador develop guidelines/policies to combat racial discrimination/stereotypes; while CCPR recommended that Honduras ensure its legislative and policy framework prohibits intersectional discrimination against Indigenous Peoples. Both CRC and CERD urged Guatemala to strengthen legislation and adopt measures to combat racism and discrimination and asked Venezuela to ensure that the policies adopted to eliminate racial discrimination are implemented. CERD and CCPR called upon Namibia, Suriname, Ecuador, Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela and France to guarantee the right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in the conduct of public affairs and political life and/or ensure Indigenous participation in political/decision-making positions/structures, governance structures, public administration and representative institutions. CERD recommended that Venezuela repeal all legal provisions that restrict the right to political participation of Indigenous Peoples. Finally, CCPR called upon Suriname to recognize the traditional authorities of Indigenous Peoples and asked Namibia to review the process and criteria for the recognition of traditional chiefs under the Traditional Authorities Act.
Intersectional discrimination and the rights of Indigenous children
The CRC expressed concerns over: multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous children in Argentina,[27] Mexico,[28] Republic of Congo (Congo),[29] Paraguay, and Guatemala; the lack of policies to protect Indigenous children in Argentina; limited progress in recognizing the rights of Indigenous children in Guatemala; high levels of poverty in Argentina, Guatemala, and Paraguay; and limited access to food (Argentina,Paraguay), healthcare (Guatemala, Argentina, Paraguay), and education (Argentina, Congo, Guatemala), plus violence and sexual abuse (Paraguay, Mexico).
Recalling its General comment No. 11 (2009) on Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, the CRC recommended that Paraguay and Argentina guarantee the rights of Indigenous children to their lands and that Argentina and Paraguay develop a national action plan to protect and promote the rights of Indigenous children. South Africa[30] was advised to re-enact the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act. The CRC also requested that Mexico, Paraguay and Guatemala guarantee consultation and the free, prior and informed participation of Indigenous children before adopting and implementing any legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
Mexico, Namibia, Congo, and Paraguay were urged to take actions and/or enact laws/policies/regulations to combat/eliminate all forms of discrimination against Indigenous children. The CRC called upon states parties to eliminate poverty and food insecurity (Paraguay, CongoArgentina) and ensure access to housing/decent standard of living (Namibia, Paraguay, Russian Federation), food and nutrition (Russian Federation, Guatemala), birth registration (Argentina, Namibia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Congo), education (Paraguay, Congo, Russian Federation), in particular multilingual/bilingual education (Namibia, Guatemala, Argentina, Paraguay), and adequate/culturally sensitive healthcare facilities and services (Argentina, Namibia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Russian Federation). CRC recommended that Paraguay, Argentina, and Congo eliminate vulnerabilities to violence and exploitation and asked Congo to investigate/prosecute the sexual abuse and killings of Indigenous children.
CRC requested that the Russian Federation, Guatemala, and Mexico establish a regulatory framework for businesses operating in the country to ensure that their activities do not negatively affect the rights of Indigenous children, including their rights to: consultation and FPIC; lands; cultural and linguistic identity; and heritage. Mexico, Guatemala, Paraguay and the Russian Federation were further advised to require companies to undertake assessments and provide public disclosure of the environmental, health-related and children’s rights impacts of their activities.
Intersectional discrimination and rights of Indigenous girls and women
CEDAW underlined restrictions related to: land ownership and property control in the Central African Republic,[31] land titles in Chile and Nicaragua,[32] and the planned adoption of the “Marco Temporal” in Brazil; as well as forced evictions/removals in Canada,[33] Chile, Brazil, and Nicaragua. CEDAW pointed out the environmental degradation caused by: mining projects in Canada, Chile, Central African Republic, and Nicaragua; agribusiness in Chile; and deforestation in Central African Republic and Nicaragua and the impacts on the traditional ways/lifestyle/livelihoods of Indigenous women and girls. CEDAW further pointed out that mining, logging, and cattle ranching were occurring on Indigenous lands without consultation or the FPIC of Indigenous women or adequate benefit-sharing in Nicaragua and Brazil.
CERD underlined the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous women and girls in Mexico, Venezuela, and Bolivia in relation to land (Kenya) and access to employment, education, and healthcare (Mexico, Venezuela). CEDAW underlined the ongoing gender-based discrimination in Canada caused by the status provisions of the Indian Act, as well as the intersecting forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous women in Canada, Chile, Japan,[34] Rwanda,[35] Brazil, Central African Republic, and Nicaragua and their limited access to: education (Malaysia,[36] Japan, Brazil, Nicaragua), employment (Japan, Malaysia, Canada, Brazil, Nicaragua), health and culturally appropriate health services (Japan, Malaysia, Brazil, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Malaysia). The Committees also expressed concern at forced sterilizations (Canada), obstetric violence (Chile, Bolivia), and high maternal mortality (Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua). CEDAW further underlined the underrepresentation of Indigenous women in decision-making positions (Nicaragua, Malaysia) and political and public life (Rwanda, Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Chile, Nicaragua), and the overrepresentation of Indigenous women in the penitentiary system (Canada, Chile, New Zealand).
CCPR and CERD raised concerns about violence/sexual violence faced by Indigenous women in Mexico, Venezuela, and India, while CEDAW underlined the prevalence of violence and gender-based violence in Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and Nicaragua; killings of Indigenous women/human rights defenders in Brazil and Nicaragua; excessive use of force by State agents in Chile and Nicaragua; criminalization, attacks, reprisals and threats in Nicaragua, Canada, Chile, Nicaragua, and Brazil; and limited access to justice in Malaysia, Rwanda, Brazil, and Chile. CEDAW underlined the ongoing impacts of intergenerational trauma caused by the Indian Residential School System and the lack of action aimed at addressing the root, systemic causes of violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada.
Drawing on its General recommendation No. 39 (2022) on the rights of Indigenous women and girls, CEDAW recommended that Chile eliminate discriminatory norms/customs that limit access to land ownership and recognize Indigenous women’s collective and individual land tenure and ownership; that the Central African Republic ensure access to land ownership and property; that New Zealand protect the rights of Indigenous women to maintain their spiritual relationship with their lands; and that Brazil ensure demarcation of Indigenous territories without any temporal restrictions. CEDAW recommended protecting Indigenous women from forced evictions (Brazil) and providing reparations for victims (Nicaragua, Brazil). CERD advised Kenya to ensure respect for women’s rights in both formal and customary land-tenure systems.
CEDAW recommended that Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, New Zealand, and Canada ensure/obtain the FPIC of Indigenous women in relation to extractive activities/projects/decisions affecting their lands; ensure that projects for the exploitation of natural resources be subject to environmental impact assessments (Nicaragua), benefit-sharing (Nicaragua, Chile, Canada) and compensation (Brazil). The Central African Republic was asked to apply due diligence to hold extractive industries accountable for violations of Indigenous women’s human rights, and that Canada ensure its companies operating domestically and abroad are held accountable for human rights violations.
CERD recommended that Mexico and Venezuela combat the multiple forms of discrimination experienced by Indigenous women and that Mexico, Venezuela, and Bolivia ensure access to education, employment and healthcare. States parties were urged to take measures/affirmative actions to ensure equal representation of Indigenous women in all areas where they are underrepresented or face discrimination (Central African Republic, Canada, Chile, Malaysia) particularly in decision-making positions in political and public life (Malaysia, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Japan, New Zealand, Ecuador). CEDAW recommended that Nicaragua, Chile, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Japan address intersecting forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous women and girls; that Canada amend the Indian Act to remove legal provisions that do not recognize the equal rights of women and men to transmit their Indian status to their children; and that Rwanda address inequalities faced by Batwa women. States parties were called upon to ensure access to: housing, social and economic benefits (New Zealand), justice (Chile, New Zealand, Brazil), employment and/or economic opportunities (New Zealand, Brazil, Malaysia), healthcare (New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Brazil, and Nicaragua) and education (Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Brazil, Nicaragua); and prevent/counter maternal mortality (Brazil , Bolivia); ensure access to abortion (Guyana); address obstetric violence (Chile, Bolivia) and forced sterilization (Canada, Mexico,); and incorporate Indigenous practices into the healthcare system (Brazil).
CEDAW and CERD recommended that states parties protect Indigenous women and girls from gender-based violence (New Zealand, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Mexico); punish/sanction perpetrators (Canada, Nicaragua); and provide access to justice or remedies (Canada, Nicaragua). Canada was asked to investigate the correlation between the legacy of residential schools and high rates of violence against Indigenous women and ensure reparations. CEDAW and CERD recommended that Bolivia prevent harassment and violence; that Brazil protect Indigenous women human rights defenders from threats, attacks, killings, and criminalization. Chile and Bolivia were advised to investigate all acts of violence/excessive use of force against women environmental human rights defenders and to prosecute and punish perpetrators. CEDAW called upon Canada to develop mechanisms to prevent the criminalization of Indigenous women human rights defenders.
Other general activities of the treaty bodies relevant to the rights of Indigenous Peoples
General comments and General recommendations
CEDAW adopted General recommendation No. 40 on the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems,[37] which specifically acknowledges the intersectional discrimination faced by Indigenous women and the value of their traditional knowledge. The Committee identified seven pillars of equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems and the corresponding obligations of States and provided recommendations for achieving gender parity and inclusion in decision-making at all levels, including within the UN system. Section V of the General recommendation contains a number of recommendations addressed to states parties to achieve the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems.
CERD adopted General recommendation No. 37 on racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to health,[38] drawing attention to Indigenous Peoples’ definition of health, and encouraging the integration of spirituality, traditional medicine, and biodiversity, all closely tied to the right to self-determination. The General recommendation recognizes the intersecting identities of Indigenous women and girls, which exacerbate barriers to accessing reproductive health, and the need to provide culturally appropriate, gender-sensitive, and geographically accessible healthcare in Indigenous languages, without discriminating against traditional knowledge, healers, and practices. Section V of the General recommendation contains a large number of recommendations addressing the rights of Indigenous Peoples.[39]
The CRC is drafting General comment No. 27 on children’s rights to access justice and effective remedies.[40] CESCR is developing a General comment on sustainable development and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[41] CERD and the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) are currently working on a Joint General comment/recommendation on State Parties’ Obligations on Public Policies for Addressing and Eradicating Xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants, their families, and other non-citizens affected by racial discrimination.[42]
Individual complaints
The CRC, CESCR, CCPR, and CEDAW all issued views on individual complaints relating to Indigenous Peoples’ rights in 2024.
Kova-Labba Siida v. Finland,[43] is a decision of the CRC involving Sámi reindeer herder children. The children alleged that their right to culture was threatened by mining, tourism, wind farms and other outside activities conducted within their traditional territory. The Committee found that by granting exploration permits without ensuring effective participation, consultation and prior impact assessments, the State party had violated the authors’ rights under articles 8, 27 and 30, in conjunction with the non-discrimination provision, article 2.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In a CESCR case[44] of the same name, the authors raised similar concerns over mineral exploration and the creation of a reservation on Sámi traditional territory. The Committee held Finland in violation of ICESCR article 15(1)(a) (culture), read alone and in conjunction with articles 1 (self-determination), article 2(2) (non-discrimination) and article 11 (standard of living). The Committee recalled that land is closely linked with the right to self-determination and that self-determination is the fundamental premise of the right to consultation and consent.[45] The Committee issued specific recommendations for Finland to review the exploration permits and the reservation “based on an adequate process for free, prior and informed consent, accompanied by an independent assessment of the impact on their rights.” General recommendations included a promise of non-repetition, the creation of legal protections to enshrine FPIC, provisions to ensure environmental, social, and cultural impact assessments, and the legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their traditional lands, including through collective ownership.
In Jovsset Ante Sara v. Norway,[46] the CCPR found that the State party had violated a Sámi reindeer herder’s right to culture under article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by ordering him to cull his reindeer herd under the 2007 Reindeer Husbandry Act. The Committee noted that reindeer husbandry was covered by the protections of article 27 as an essential element of the culture of a community, a way of life closely associated with their traditional lands, territories, and resources and tied to their physical and cultural survival.
CEDAW issued a decision in the case of María Elena Carbajal Cepeda et al. v. Peru[47] filed by Indigenous women who alleged they had been subjected to forced sterilization in the 1990s. The Committee found Peru in violation of article 2 (non-discrimination) read in conjunction with articles 3, 10(h), 12, 14 and 24 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Committee further found that the State party did not sufficiently investigate and punish those responsible and did not implement measures for the authors to obtain reparations. It made specific recommendations for the State to provide the authors with financial compensation and psychological assistance and to investigate the incidents and punish those responsible. More generally, it urged Peru to investigate all acts of forced sterilization, implement a reparation programme, and ensure a legal framework adequate to diligently addressing investigations and reparation processes.
Early-Warning Measures and Urgent Action Procedures (EWUP)
Under its EWUP, CERD considered 10 Indigenous rights-related cases.[48] The letters concerned: Australia’s 2023 restoration of the 1972 Western Australian Government’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act;[49] updates on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh;[50] land rights of the Bagyeli Indigenous Peoples in Cameroon;[51] criminalization of First Nations members opposing pipeline projects in Canada;[52] the impacts of the Canadian-owned Line 5 pipeline on Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Canada;[53] updates to Canada’s drafting of the distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation;[54] the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope and its impact on the Mauna Kea sacred site in USA;[55] the Apache Indigenous Peoples’ opposition to a mining project and its impacts on the Oak Flat sacred site in USA;[56] the construction of a French-owned power plant in French Guyana, resulting in the deforestation of the Kali’na Indigenous Peoples’ lands, police violence and criminalization;[57] Guyana’s granting of mining concessions on the lands of the Wapichan and the Chinese Landing Carib Indigenous People;[58] and the impact of seaport development on the Nama Indigenous Peoples in Namibia.[59]
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 and Minorities 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.
Alivia Kiefer, Leo Killsback, Allyson LeForce and Sean O’Brien are law students enrolled in the International Human Rights Advocacy Workshop at the University of Arizona.
This article is part of the 39th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of an Indigenous activist Funa-ay Claver, a Bontok Igorot, standing alongside Indigenous youth activists and others. They are protesting against the repressive laws and human rights violations suffered through the actions and projects of the Government of the Philippines and other actors against Indigenous Peoples at President Marcos Jr’s national address on 22 July 2024 in Quezon City, Philippines. The photo was taken by Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas and is the cover of The Indigenous World 2025 where this article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2025 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] CCPR/C/SUR/CO/4, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FSUR%2FCO%2F4&Lang=en
[4] E/C.12/IDN/CO/2, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FIDN%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en
[5] CCPR/C/NAM/CO/3, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FNAM%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en
[6] See references to constitutional amendment process in CCPR/C/CHL/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FCHL%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[7] CEDAW/C/New Zealand/CO/9,. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FNew ZealandL%2FCO%2F9&Lang=en
[8] CERD/C/KEN/CO/8-9, 31, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FKEN%2FCO%2F8-9&Lang=en
[9] CERD/C/MEX/CO/22-24, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FMEX%2FCO%2F22-24&Lang=en
[10] CERD/C/ECU/CO/25, 23, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FECU%2FCO%2F25&Lang=en
[11] CERD/C/BOL/CO/21-24, https://docs.un.org/en/CERD/C/BOL/CO/21-24
[12] CCPR/C/FRA/CO/6, , https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/FRA/CO/6
[13] Ibid
[14] CRC/C/MEX/CO/6-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FMEX%2FCO%2F6-7&Lang=en;
[15] CEDAW/C/CHL/CO/8, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%252FC%252FCHL%252FCO%252F8&Lang=en
[16] CCPR/C/GUY/CO/3, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FGUY%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en
[17] CCPR/C/IND/CO/4, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FIND%2FCO%2F4&Lang=en.
[18]CERD/C/VEN/CO/22-24, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FVEN%2FCO%2F22-24&Lang=en
[19] CCPR/C/HND/CO/3, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FHND%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en, E/C.12/HND/CO/3, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FHND%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en
[20] E/C.12/IDN/CO/2, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FIDN%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en.
[21]E/C.12/SWE/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2FSWE%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[22] CRC/C/GTM/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FGTM%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en
[23] CRC/C/RUS/CO/6-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FRUS%2FCO%2F6-7&Lang=en
[24] CCPR called upon Honduras and Suriname to ensure the full implementation of the judgements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the rights of Indigenous and tribal peoples. CESCR called upon Honduras to ensure implementation of all judicial decisions, in particular the amparo ruling in favour of the Tolupán Indigenous People in Yoro. CERD recommended that Kenya fully implement the African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and High Court decisions regarding the rights of the Endorois, Ogiek and Sengwer peoples.
[25] CRC/C/PRY/CO/4-6, https://docs.un.org/en/CRC/C/PRY/CO/4-6
[26]CEDAW/C/BRA/CO/8-9, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FBRA%2FCO%2F8-9&Lang=en.
[27] CRC/C/ARG/CO/7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FARG%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en.
[28] CRC/C/MEX/CO/6-7, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FMEX%2FCO%2F6-7&Lang=en
[29] CRC/C/COG/CO/5-6, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FCOG%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en.
[30] CRC/C/ZAF/CO/3-6, https://docs.un.org/en/crc/c/zaf/co/3-6
[31] CEDAW/C/CAF/CO/6, https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/CAF/CO/6
[32] CEDAW/C/NIC/CO/7-10, https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/NIC/CO/7-10
[33] CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F10&Lang=en.
[34] CEDAW/C/JPN/CO/9, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FJPN%2FCO%2F9&Lang=en
[35] CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/10, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FJPN%2FCO%2F9&Lang=en
[36] CEDAW/C/MYS/CO/6, https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/MYS/CO/6
[37] CEDAW/C/GC/40, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/324/40/pdf/n2432440.pdf
[38] CERD/C/GC/37, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-recommendation-no-37-2024-racial
[39] The General recommendation notably calls upon states parties to: refrain from prohibiting or impeding access to traditional medicine and practice; adopting discriminatory laws and practices in sexual and reproductive health; conducting activities that cause disproportionate environmental damage or expropriate Indigenous Peoples’ lands and displacing them without their prior, free and informed consent; installing waste disposal sites or other environmental hazards on Indigenous Peoples’ territories and imposing restrictions on the permanent rights of Indigenous Peoples, endangering their self-determination, traditional livelihoods and cultural rights, in accordance with the standards of the UNDRIP. The General recommendations also called upon states parties to ensure that a sufficient number of health professionals provide services to Indigenous Peoples, and that the State party set up benchmarks for monitoring progress in key areas of Indigenous disadvantage, co-design with Indigenous Peoples culturally acceptable and gender-sensitive preventive, curative and palliative health services, adopt and implement well-resourced policies that aim to improve the socioeconomic situation of Indigenous Peoples and to address the deep-rooted discrimination, including special measures.
[40] The Comment will examine various mechanisms and how they interact and complement each other, including customary, tribal, and Indigenous justice systems. The Comment seeks to provide guidance on empowering children as rights holders, including child human rights defenders and children involved in the justice process. It will address the procedural rights of children, including legal standing, legal aid, the right to be heard and accompanied, and the right to interpretation and translation. A core objective of the Comment is to identify the practical, legal, social and cultural barriers for children seeking access to justice. Para 1 discusses the background need for the comment. Para 10 discusses the scope of the guidance the general comment will provide. Para 13 discusses the procedural legal rights of children and their families. Para 17 discusses some core aims of the general comment. (CRC/C/GC/27) OHCHR. “Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concept Note: Children’s Rights to Access to Justice and Effective Remedies.” https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/draft-general-comment-no-27-childrens-rights-access
[41] The Comment will explore the following themes: natural resources and responsible governance; environmental degradation and biodiversity loss; climate change and economic and social and cultural rights; gender equality; marginalized groups and intersectionality; Indigenous Peoples, peasants and rural workers; private actors; international cooperation, extra-territorial obligations and transboundary impacts; remedies and accountability; and the interrelationship between sustainable development and the Covenant. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr/general-comment-sustainable-development-and-international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural
[42] https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/call-submissions-concept-paper-cerd-cmw-joint-general-commentrecommendation
[43] CRC/C/97/D/172/2022, 13 September 2024 https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2F97%2FD%2F172%2F2022&Lang=en
[44]E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 and E/C.12/76/D/289/2022, 27 September 2024 https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2FC.12%2F76%2FD%2F251%2F2022&Lang=en
[45] As explained by the Committee, states parties to the CESCR are required to take measures to recognize and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources and to ensure their effective participation in decision-making processes that may affect their way of life, in particular their right to land, based on the principle of their free, prior and informed consent, so as not to endanger the very survival of the community.
[46] CCPR/C/141/D/3588/2019, 19 July 2024 https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F141%2FD%2F3588%2F2019&Lang=en
[47] CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021, 4 October 2024, (Spanish) https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2F89%2FD%2F170%2F2021&Lang=en
[48] https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Ewua.aspx?Lang=en; https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cerd/decisions-statements-and-letters
[49] CERD/EWUAP/112th session/2024/CS/cs/ks, 26 April 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FAUS%2F9986&Lang=en
[50] CERD/EWUAP/114session/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FBGD%2F11087&Lang=en
[51] CERD/EWUAP/114session/CS/CS/ks, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FCMR%2F11088&Lang=en
[52] CERD/EWUAP/114session/2024/CS/BJ/ksl, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FCAN%2F11089&Lang=en
[53] CERD/EWUAP/114session/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FCAN%2F11089&Lang=en
[54] CERD/EWUAP/113thsession/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 23 August 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FCAN%2F10041&Lang=en
[55] CERD/EWUAP/112th session/2024/CS/cs/ks, 26 April 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FCAN%2F9987&Lang=en
CERD/EWUAP/112th session/2024/CS/cs/ks, 26 April 2024,
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FUSA%2F9988&Lang=en
[56] CERD/EWUAP/113thsession/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 23 August 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FUSA%2F10043&Lang=en
[57] CERD/EWUAP/112th session/2024/CS/cs/ks, 26 April 2024 (French),
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FFRA%2F9985&Lang=en.
[58] CERD/EWUAP/114session/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FGUY%2F11091&Lang=en.
[59] CERD/EWUAP/114session/2024/CS/BJ/ks, 13 December 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCERD%2FALE%2FNAM%2F11092&Lang=en
Tags: Global governance
