CONSEJO INTERNACIONAL DE TRATADOS INDIOS

United Nations Commission on Human Rights

7th Ad Hoc Intersessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration for the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, January 28 – February 8, 2002

Discussion on the Process re: Article 13

Thank you Mr. Chairman and very good morning to all.  The International Indian Treaty Council presents this joint statement on behalf the IITC, Movement de la Juventud Kuna and Asociacion Napguana of Panama, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations and Grand Council of the Crees of Canada, Enlace Continental de Mujeres Indigenas and Coalition Campesina Indigena de los Pueblos del Istmo de Oaxaca Mexico, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council of Alaska, the Coordination de Organizaciones del Pueblo Maya de Guatemala, and the Mashentucket Piquot Tribal Nation in the United States.   

We welcome the opportunity to discuss and share views with both indigenous and state delegations regarding article 13 of the Draft Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples because this article contains provisions which are vital to the full recognition and defense of our Peoples' fundamental rights. 

We look forward to a process of discussion, dialogue and exchange of views with participants in this session which can bring us closer to mutual understanding towards building a consensus today or in the future.

It is in this spirit that we offer these remarks regarding the structure of this discussion, especially our firm opposition to the inclusion of the called "discussion paper" which was tabled by some states at the previous session of this working group with no time for discussion, and which is being presented once again to us this year today as a basis for our discussion on article 13.

We base our opposition to the use of this document in our discussion today on the following concerns:

1)  It is an anonymous document which does not specify which states participated in the redrafting session, which contributed to different parts of the bracketed texts, and which are included in those who can accept the current text.   Indigenous delegates are thereby denied an opportunity to understand the specific objections or difficulties certain states have with the current text, or why they have proposed alternative language.  We can not engage in transparent and fruitful dialogue with states on this basis.

2)  This paper contains 25 separate sets of brackets in two short paragraphs of text, rendering it virtually incomprehensible as a basis for serious discussion  

3)  The paper has not been translated into all the languages used by the Indigenous delegations in attendance here, violating the principles of full participation of Indigenous Peoples' delegations which all participants have professed 

4)  We stress once again that we are opposed to focusing discussion of specific articles in this Working Group on anything other than the original text of the Declaration, as approved by the Subcommission.  The accepted procedure for this Working Group since its inception under Commission on Human Rights Resolution 95/32 has been to consider the original text as the basis for all work and discussions addressing the Declaration's underlying principles as well as the specific content of the articles.       

5)  And finally, it is very important to us that we engaging in dialogue and discussions that will have the possibility of moving forward a consensus building process.  This so called "discussion paper" on article 13 is more than one year old.   It therefore does not reflect in any way the progress or development that may have occurred in state positions, or internal dialogue within states with Indigenous Peoples which may have resulted in considerable development of positions and views, as we have seen demonstrated by the government of Mexico's statements here, as well as the very important and encouraging interventions made by a number of states in yesterday's plenary regarding collective rights.    To use this paper, based on a conglomeration of state positions from more than one year ago would be moving backwards rather than forwards in our consensus building process.

Our delegations therefore recommend to the chair that we begin our discussion on article 13, and that states or Indigenous delegations wishing to express either their concerns or support for the current text of the article, or to respond directly to each others' current positions and concerns, can do so freely and openly during the dialogue.   In this way we will all be able to see where we now might have reached consensus and where more discussion may be required, based on current rather than past positions.

We ask that the chair present this option as to how to process with the discussion on article 13 to the state and Indigenous Peoples' delegations before we proceed with any discussion of a paper reflecting positions of more than one year ago.

Thank you.