United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Examples of Legislative Texts and Litigation
July 5, 2019 Jennifer Preston and Paul Joffe

Introduction

This document provides examples of:

• Canadian legislative documents that take into account the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Litigation in Canada that invokes the United Nations Declaration
• Application of the United Nations Declaration in other countries

This document does not present comprehensive lists, but rather gives an idea of the extent to which adherence to the Declaration is gaining ground both domestically and internationally. The development of a national action plan should include a review and use of these examples. It should also take into account examples of current implementation measures at the community level.

Canadian Legislative Documents Reflecting the United Nations Declaration

At the Federal Level

Nine federal laws currently take into account the United Nations Declaration

These are the following laws:

• Department of Indigenous Services Act
• Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act
• An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General)
• Indigenous Languages Act
• An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families
• First Nations Land Management Act
• Department for Women and Gender Equality Act
• Impact Assessment Act
• Canadian Energy Regulator Act

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, SC 2019, c. 29:

Enactment of the Act

336 The Department of Indigenous Services Act is enacted as follows:

Department of Indigenous Services Act

Preamble

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to:

• achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition and implementation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;
• fostering respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
• implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

337 The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act is enacted as follows:

Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act

Preamble

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition and implementation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership; to fostering respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General), SC 2017, c. 25 (assented to December 12, 2017):

Consultations and Reports

Consultations by Minister

11 (1) The Minister must, within six months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, initiate consultations and cooperate with First Nations and other interested parties to develop proposals for solutions to issues raised by the provisions of the Indian Act relating to registration and band membership, including consultations regarding:

a) issues relating to adoption;

b) the 1951 cut-off date for entitlement to registration;

c) the second-generation cut-off;

d) unknown or unstated parentage;

e) enfranchisement;

f) the continued federal role in determining Indian status and band membership;

g) First Nations’ authorities to determine band membership.

Obligation

(2) The Minister, First Nations and other interested parties must, during the consultations, take into account the effects of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if applicable, the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding the issues raised.

Indigenous Languages Act, SC 2019, c. 23, preamble:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides for rights in relation to Indigenous languages;

….

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that relationships with Indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government;

….

Whereas Indigenous languages are fundamental to the identity, culture, spirituality, relationships to the land, world views and self-determination of Indigenous peoples;

And in section 5:

5 The purpose of this Act is to:

g) contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c. 24, preamble

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

…

Whereas Parliament affirms the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples, including the inherent right of self-government, which includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services;

And in section 8:

The purpose of this Act is to:

c) contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Department for Women and Gender Equality Act, enacted by the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, SC 2018, c. 27, s. 661, preamble:

<<Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;>>

Amendment to the preamble of the First Nations Land Management Act, enacted by the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, supra

<< Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

>>

Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c. 28, preamble and Canadian Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c. 28, preamble.

<< Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the **United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

>>

<< Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit through relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;

>>

British Columbia

Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 51, s. 2(2)

b) The purposes of the Environmental Assessment Office are:

ii) to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia

A. by supporting the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

B. by recognizing the inherent jurisdiction of Indigenous nations and their right to participate in decision making in matters that may affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves,

C. by collaborating with Indigenous nations in relation to reviewable projects, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 40, s. 4

Commitment to Indigenous Peoples

The strategy must reflect the commitment made regarding:

a) reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

b) the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action

c) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Manitoba

The Path to Reconciliation Act, S.M. 2016, c. 5 (assented to March 15, 2016), s. 4

The minister responsible for reconciliation is to guide the development of a strategy for reconciliation that:

a) is guided by the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the principles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

Excerpts from Litigation Invoking the United Nations Declaration

The United Nations Declaration can be used by Canadian courts to interpret the rights of Indigenous peoples and the related obligations of the Crown enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, specifically under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

See generally Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, p. 348 (Chief Justice Dickson dissenting; cited with approval in United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, para. 80):

The various sources of international human rights law—declarations, covenants, conventions, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of international tribunals and customary norms—must, in my opinion, be relevant and persuasive sources for interpretation of the provisions of the [Canadian] Charter.

If international declarations can be used to interpret the human rights set out in the Canadian Charter in Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, then the same rule must apply to the rights of Indigenous peoples mentioned in Section 35 (Part II). There cannot be a discriminatory double standard.

The United Nations Declaration has been used in numerous domestic litigations and, unfortunately, there are several examples where it has not been well used or where the manner in which it is mentioned in the decision leads to confusion. This underscores the need for more advanced legal training for both lawyers and the judiciary. Here are some useful examples of litigation and key passages.

Pastion v. Dene Tha’ First Nation, 2018 FC 648:

[10] … the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada noted that recognizing the power of Indigenous peoples to make laws is essential to reconciliation (Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) at pp. 165-168). And the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (GA Res 61/295, 61st Sess, Supp No 53 (2007)) echoes these aspirations in Article 34:

Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)), 2018 CHRT 4, https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/2018%20CHRT%204.pdf:

International Law

[69] The CHRA is the result of the implementation of international human rights principles into domestic law (see the Decision at paras. 437-439).

[72] The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), GA Res. 61/295, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 49, Vol. III, UN Doc. A/61/49 (2007), is of particular importance in this case. It describes the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples. In May 2016, the Government of Canada endorsed UNDRIP, stating that it supported it fully and without qualification.

[73] Articles 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 18, 21 of UNDRIP support the right to fair and equal services and programs for Indigenous people, with consultation regarding their social, economic and political institutions.

[74] Articles 7, 21 (2), 22 (1) (2) of UNDRIP provide that Indigenous peoples have the right to live in freedom and shall not be subjected to any act of violence, including the forcible removal of children from their families; that Indigenous peoples have the right to the improvement of their economic and social conditions; and that States shall take measures to improve the rights of children and pay particular attention to their special needs.

[75] Articles 2, 7, 22 of UNDRIP directly concern the protection of Indigenous children and their right to be free from any form of discrimination.

[76] Article 8 of UNDRIP reminds governments that they have the responsibility to ensure that no forced assimilation occurs and that effective mechanisms are in place to prevent the deprivation of Indigenous peoples’ cultural identity and distinctiveness and the dispossession of their lands, territories or resources, and to prevent population transfers that violate or erode Indigenous rights, forced assimilation or integration, and discriminatory propaganda.

[77] Furthermore, in 2015, Canada agreed to fully implement the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to Action 1 to 5 concern child welfare and Jordan’s Principle.

[78] TRC Calls to Action 8, 10, 11 and 12 call on the government to eliminate the gap in federal funding for First Nations, while Calls to Action 18 and 19 call on the government to recognize the current health status of Indigenous people and to set goals to close the gaps in this area.

[79] The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls for cooperation and coordination among all levels of government and civil society to implement its Calls to Action and for the government to adopt and fully apply UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation.

[80] Canada has recognized the need to renew the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous communities.

[81] Furthermore, the Tribunal is of the view that domestic laws, such as the CHRA, must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with Canada’s commitments expressed in international law, which includes UNDRIP.

Conclusion

[451] It is important to examine this decision through the lens of justice and not simply through the lens of the law, especially with reconciliation as the objective. Our country needs healing and reconciliation, and the starting point is the children and respect for their rights. If this is not understood in a meaningful way—in the sense that this decision should lead to real and measurable changes—then the work of the TRC and the Tribunal is trivialized, and unfortunately, it is vulnerable children who will suffer.

R. v. Sayers, 2017 ONCJ 77:

50 Articles 3, 8(2)(b), 26, 28, 32 and 40 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appear to have significance in the context of this proceeding. The provisions of these articles are set out below (the decision then reproduces all the articles of the Declaration).

51 In addition to the articles of the United Nations Declaration mentioned above, the publication of the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015 signals another important development in Indigenous rights in our country. The summary of the Commission’s final report contains a number of “Calls to Action.” The recommendations or “Calls to Action” that are most relevant in the context of this case are those set out in paragraphs 42, 45, 46, 52 and 92 (i) and (ii) of that report and are reproduced below (the decision then reproduces all the Calls to Action).

53 The court makes the following observations

1. The Crown is a special party in these and other prosecution proceedings. Its role is not to win or lose litigation, but to ensure that justice is done. The Crown is not an ordinary litigant, but has a considerable public duty (see the comments of Sopinka J. in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326).
2. Furthermore, in its dealings with Indigenous peoples and in the treatment of Indigenous rights and land claims, the Crown has a special responsibility and relationship. It must deal with Indigenous peoples and matters concerning them fairly and appropriately, especially in light of the recent recommendations published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Canada’s recent adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

67 In fact, the court finds that the withdrawal of the charges is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Calls to Action set out in the summary of the TRC’s final report.

74 In accordance with the wording of paragraph 45 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, and as suggested by counsel for the Batchewana First Nation defendants, this process should: “reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.”

113 In this case, the Crown indicates that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, but it chose not to proceed with the prosecution for reasons of public policy. One of the reasons advanced to justify this decision was that this was not the most appropriate forum to deal with issues relating to Aboriginal rights claims. I agree. However, the jurisprudence in the *Marshall* case, cited above, predates this prosecution. As I indicated in my reasons regarding the granting of leave to the Crown to withdraw the charges, recent developments—including Canada’s ratification of the **United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples** and the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations—have greatly encouraged discussions between the Crown and First Nations to resolve their differences instead of resorting to criminal proceedings.

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. G.H., 2016 ONSC 6287:

66… The Crown emphasized that the cornerstone of its commitment to achieving reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians was the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission regarding Indian Residential Schools. In 2010, the federal government took another significant step in implementing its promise to pursue reconciliation by signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In May 2016, the Government of Canada announced that it fully and without qualification supported this international Declaration.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2016 CHRT 2:

452 Finally, on November 12, 2010, Canada endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res. 61/295, UN Doc. A/61/49 (2007) (UNDRIP), which the United Nations General Assembly adopted on September 13, 2007. Article 2 provides that Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. While this international instrument is currently a declaration and not a treaty or covenant and is not legally binding—except to the extent that some of its provisions reflect customary international law—when Canada endorsed it, it reiterated its commitment to “[…] improve the well-being of Indigenous Canadians” (Canada’s Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, November 12, 2010, online: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1309374239861/1309374546142).

453 According to the international instruments and treaty monitoring bodies mentioned above, equality must be substantive and not merely formal. Consequently, it is often necessary to take specific measures, including budgetary ones, to achieve substantive equality. These international legal instruments also reinforce the need to give due attention to the unique situation and needs of First Nations children and members, particularly children, who are vulnerable both as children and as members of a First Nation.

454 The concerns expressed by international monitoring bodies reflect many of the issues raised in this complaint. Canada’s statements in its periodic reports to various treaty monitoring bodies demonstrate beyond doubt that the federal government is aware of the measures to be taken at the national level to address these concerns. Canada’s statements and commitments, whether expressed on the international or national stage, must be more than just an exercise in rhetoric.

455 Substantive equality and Canada’s international obligations require that First Nations children on-reserve receive child and family services of comparable quality and accessibility as those provided to all Canadians living off-reserve. This includes ensuring these services are adequately funded to meet the actual needs of First Nations children and families and that they do not perpetuate historical disadvantage.

Nunatukavut Community Council Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 981, para. 96:

96 The Nunatukavut Community Council (NCC) also argued that the Minister’s duty to consult and accommodate should be read in light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295, UN Doc A/61/49 (2007) (“UNDRIP”), which Canada endorsed on November 12, 2010. The values reflected in international human rights law can inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review (Baker, para. 70) and, although not enforceable, international law informs the interpretation of domestic law under the presumption of conformity (R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26, paras. 53 to 55). The Supreme Court has relied on UNDRIP to interpret Aboriginal rights (*Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue, 2001 SCC 33, paras. 80-83 [Mitchell]) and, since its endorsement, the Court has accepted that UNDRIP applies to the interpretation of Canadian human rights laws and administrative manuals for Indigenous peoples (Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General)*, 2012 FC 445, paras. 350-354; aff’d 2013 FCA 75; Simon v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1117, para. 121 [Simon]).

103 I agree with the NCC’s general premise that UNDRIP can be used to inform the interpretation of domestic law. As Justice L’Heureux Dubé stated in Baker, even though values reflected in international instruments do not have the force of law, they may be used to inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review (paras. 70 and 71). In Simon, Justice Scott, then of this Court, similarly concluded that the Court will favor interpretations of the law that embody the values of UNDRIP, but that the instrument does not create substantive rights. When interpreting Canadian statutes, there is a rebuttable presumption that they are enacted in conformity with Canada’s international obligations. Therefore, where a provision of a domestic statute can be interpreted in more than one sense, the interpretation that is consistent with international agreements signed by Canada should be preferred.

R. v. Quock, 2015 YKTC 32 (CanLII):

[114] On May 31, 2015, the summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was released (“the Summary”).

[115] The following excerpts are from the preface of the Summary. [116] The Summary also contains a section titled “Calls to Action.” Among these, regarding the field of justice, it reads: 42) We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to commit to the recognition and implementation of an Aboriginal justice system that is consistent with the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples, is respectful of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada endorsed in November 2012.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2012 FC 445 (affirmed by 2013 FCA 75), para. 155:

I accept Amnesty’s view that international human rights law requires Canada to monitor and enforce individual human rights domestically and to provide effective remedies where those rights have been violated.

And at paragraph 351:

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the importance of international human rights law in interpreting domestic legislation such as the *Canadian Human Rights Act*. The Court has ruled that, in the exercise of interpreting Canadian law, the legislature will be presumed to act in accordance with its international obligations. Consequently, when called upon to choose between different possible interpretations of a domestic legislative provision, the courts will avoid those that would lead to a violation of international obligations. The legislature will also respect the values and principles contained in international law, both customary and conventional.

And at paragraph 353:

International instruments such as UNDRIP and the Convention on the Rights of the Child may be taken into account in the contextual approach to statutory interpretation: see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, [1999] SCJ No. 39 (QL), paras. 69-71.

Simon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1117 (decision overturned on appeal)

[53] The Applicants also refer to Canada’s commitment set out in Article 5 of the Social Union Framework Agreement [SUFA] and to Canada’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP], specifically Articles 19, 21 and 43, to argue that both instruments reflect values and principles that should have guided the Minister’s decision.

[121] The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the importance of international human rights laws in the interpretation of domestic laws, such as the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, RSC 1985, c H-6. With respect to the interpretation of Canadian laws, it is presumed, though rebuttable, that these laws were enacted in conformity with Canada’s international obligations. Consequently, when a provision of a domestic law can have several meanings, the interpretation consistent with international agreements concluded by Canada must be preferred. In this case, the Applicants invoke UNDRIP, which should be taken into account as part of the contextual approach to statutory interpretation, according to the aforementioned Baker decision at paragraphs 69 to 71. In fact, even if this instrument does not create substantive rights, the Court nonetheless favors an interpretation corresponding to the values described therein.

Adoption-1212, [2012] R.J.Q. 1137 (Court of Quebec (Youth Division))

587 Another international law instrument that applies to the situation of Indigenous children is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007, and endorsed by Canada on November 12, 2010. This Declaration was adopted in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect and with the objective of respecting and promoting the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples.

Examples of Implementation of the United Nations Declaration Worldwide

Numerous measures have been taken worldwide to concretely implement the United Nations Declaration. Here are a few examples.

In Bolivia, the Declaration was adopted at the national level as Law No. 3760 of November 7, 2007, and incorporated into the new Constitution promulgated on February 7, 2009. Bolivia emphasizes that it “has granted constitutional status to the obligation to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples, thereby becoming the first country in the world to implement this international instrument¹.”

In Ecuador, the Constitution recognizes and guarantees Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations a wide range of collective rights², in accordance with the Constitution and international agreements, conventions, declarations, and other human rights instruments. These constitutional rights clearly include those mentioned in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In the Arctic, Greenland significantly strengthened its self-government on June 21, 2009, and celebrated its new partnership with Denmark³. As noted by the former Premier of Greenland, Kuupik Kleist, “this new development in relations between Denmark and Greenland should be seen as a de facto application of the Declaration and, in this regard, as an inspiration for others¹.”

In August 2009, Norway affirmed: “The Declaration contextualizes all existing human rights for Indigenous peoples and therefore provides the natural framework of reference for work and debate regarding the promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

In May 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled that Kenya had violated the human rights of the Ogiek people. The African Court relied on the United Nations Declaration to interpret African human rights law7.

In Belize, the Supreme Court relied on the United Nations Declaration and other aspects of international and domestic law to uphold the rights of the Maya people to lands and resources8.
Within the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations Declaration served as a “baseline for negotiations and… a minimum standard” in the drafting of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The American Declaration was adopted by consensus in June 2016. OAS members include countries from North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean.
Voir aussi Mauro Barelli,Seeking Justice in International Law: The Significance and Implications of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Routledge Research in International Law)(New York: Routledge, 2016), p. 67:

In light of the authority and legitimacy that the Declaration has acquired in the international legal system, States cannot reject it as a mere aspirational document. Against this background, a number of international bodies that deal, directly or incidentally, with the issue of indigenous rights are putting political pressure on States to respect the UNDRIP. Furthermore, human rights treaty monitoring bodies are using the Declaration to interpret and expand a number of provisions contained in their respective instruments. Most importantly, there are ways through which regional and domestic courts can rely, directly or indirectly, on the UNDRIP. In particular, as suggested by the practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and a number of domestic courts, the UNDRIP can notably be used as an authoritative instrument to clarify, interpret and expand the meaning and scope of regional and domestic laws.

Notes

1. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Information received from Governments: Bolivia, E/C.19/2009/4/Add.2 (February 24, 2009), para. 57
2. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador*, revised in 2008, art. 58
3. Act on Greenland Self-Government. This Act recognizes the Greenlandic people as a people under international law (preamble) and Greenlandic as the official language of Greenland (Section 20). The Act also establishes Greenland’s ownership and control regarding all mineral resources (Section 7, paras. 2-4)
4. Greenland (Delegation of Denmark), Statement by Mr. Kuupik Kleist, Premier of Greenland, delivered at the second session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Geneva, August 11, 2009, p. 2
5. Norway, Statement (Agenda Item 4), delivered at the second session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Geneva, August 12, 2009 (copy on file with author)
6. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, Application No. 006/2012, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, decision of May 26, 2017
7. Ibid., paras. 131 and 209.
8. Cal v. Attorney General of Belize and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment; Coy v. Attorney General of Belize and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment* (October 18, 2007), consolidated claims 171 and 172, Supreme Court of Belize, paras. 118-135.
9. Organization of American States (Working Group to Prepare the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), *Report of the Chair on the Meeting of Reflection on the Meetings of Negotiations in the Quest for Points of Consensus* (Washington DC, United States, November 26-28, 2007, OAS/Ser.K/XVI, GT/DADIN/doc.321/08 (January 14, 2008), p. 3: