Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback New Zealand Yearbook of International Law

Adcock, Fleur; Charters, Claire --- "Indigenous Peoples Rights Under International Law" [2010] NZYbkIntLaw 10; (2010) 8 New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 203

Last Updated: 10 August 2015

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. Introduction

In 2010 Indigenous peoples’ rights continued to feature in discussions in a variety of international fora. Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources (GR) were discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);1 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) and within the World Trade Office (WTO). The United Nations (UN) General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration)2 featured in debate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);3 the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee; the work of the UN mechanisms with a specific mandate concerning Indigenous peoples; and, in a landmark ruling of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (African Commission), was adopted by the African Union.4 International human rights monitoring bodies also advanced their jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

New Zealand showed increased rhetorical commitment to Indigenous peoples’ rights in 2010; notably announcing its support for the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration.5 At the same time, New Zealand has been careful to emphasise that its engagement with the “aspirational elements” of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration will occur within the bounds of New Zealand’s distinct legal and constitutional framework.6

II. Developments in Relation to International Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Forms of Non-Binding or Soft Law Instruments

A. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

New Zealand announced its decision to support the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) in April 2010.7 The Hon Dr Pita Sharples stated that “[i]n keeping with our strong commitment to human rights, and indigenous rights in particular, New Zealand now adds its support to the Declaration both as an affirmation of fundamental rights and in its expression of new and widely supported aspirations.”8 He also stated that New Zealand’s engagement with the “aspirational elements” of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration will be defined within the bounds of New Zealand’s legal and constitutional frameworks, including the Treaty of Waitangi.9 This suggests that the Government may seek to limit application of aspects of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration to New Zealand.

New Zealand’s statement of support for the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration was followed by Canada’s endorsement in November 201010 and the United States’ endorsement in December 2010.11 Now all four states initially in opposition to the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration have expressed at least qualified support for it.12

B. World Conference on Indigenous Peoples

In November 2010 the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution to hold a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014, at the close of the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, to pursue realisation of the rights of Indigenous peoples.13

III. Developments in Relation to International Treaties

A. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

The 2010 Cancun Agreements adopted under the UNFCCC include a decision on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), which is of relevance to Indigenous peoples. Despite resistance from various governments, the decision affirms that in implementing REDD specified “safeguards” concerning Indigenous and other peoples should be “promoted and respected”,14 twice referring to the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration15 and also to the “full and effective participation” of Indigenous peoples16 but omitting any reference to states’ duty to obtain Indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent.17 New Zealand supported the Cancun Agreements hailing them as “a step towards a global, legally binding and comprehensive agreement on climate change”.18 However, the Agreements have been criticised by Indigenous peoples for their weak language on Indigenous rights.19

IV. Adoption of National Laws and Regulations on matters of International Significance

The Government introduced the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill (the Bill) into Parliament in September 2010.20 The Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA), which attracted criticism from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the former UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples (formerly called Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people) (Special Rapporteur).21 However, some Māori commentators have criticised the Bill for retaining many of the FSA’s discriminatory aspects. They argue that the Bill continues to unjustifiably treat Māori property rights as different than, and lesser to, non-Māori property rights without providing appropriate compensation.22 The Māori Affairs Select Committee, which is considering the Bill, will report back in February 2011.

V. International Oversight of New Zealand’s Compliance with Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

A. UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The Special Rapporteur visited New Zealand in July 2010 to follow-up on the 2005 visit of the former Special Rapporteur. In his preliminary note on the visit, the Special Rapporteur acknowledged the positive steps being taken by the Government to further the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; New Zealand’s endorsement of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration; and the importance of the Treaty settlement process. However, he highlighted several concerns regarding the:

• unequal bargaining power between Māori and the Crown in Treaty settlement negotiations, urging the Government to reconsider its decision not to return lands within Te Urewera National Park to Ngai Tuhoe;

• FSA, urging the Government “to ensure that the reform process includes an adequate dialogue with Māori people, and that the new legislative arrangement avoids any discriminatory effects and establishes measures to recognize and protect rights of iwi over the foreshore and seabed”;

• need for constitutional protection of “the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi and related internationally-protected human rights”, encouraging the Government to carry out its proposed constitutional review “with the full and adequate participation of the Māori”; and

• “extreme disadvantage in the social and economic conditions of Māori people”, commenting that these conditions “must continue to be addressed as a matter of upmost priority”.23

• The Special Rapporteur will release his full report on his mission to New Zealand in 2011.

B. UN Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee reviewed New Zealand in early 2010 noting concern in relation to:

• the high incarceration rate of Māori and especially Māori women;24

• the lack of information provided by the state on “Operation 8” (the so- called antiterrorism raids);25

• discrimination in the FSA against Māori; and

• the Treaty of Waitangi, as since it is not part of formal law, it is difficult for Māori to invoke it before the courts.26

VI. Discussion of International Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples in International Fora

A. UN General Assembly Third Committee

In its statement on Indigenous issues at the UN General Assembly Third Committee New Zealand reiterated its support for the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration but again emphasised the boundaries of its engagement with the Declaration’s aspirational elements. Regarding the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (EMRIP) 2010 discussions on free, prior and informed consent, New Zealand commented that it “has developed, and will continue to rely upon, its own distinct processes and institutions that afford opportunities to Māori for such involvement”, ranging from consultation to consent.27 Similar comments were made by New Zealand at the EMRIP’s third session in July 2010.28 In addition, New Zealand expressed its pleasure at the appointment of New Zealand legal scholar Valmaine Toki (of Nga Puhi, Ngati Wai and Ngati Rehua descent) to the PFII.29

B. Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties

The Nagoya Protocol was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the CBD in October 2010 and is of importance to Indigenous peoples.30 It provides a legal framework for the accessing and sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of non-human genetic resources (GR), including indigenous and local communities TK associated with GR. Indigenous peoples have expressed disappointment with the Protocol, asserting that Indigenous rights do not receive sufficient recognition and that this will need to be addressed in domestic legislation giving effect to the Protocol.31

Despite identifying the conclusion of negotiations on a protocol on access and benefit-sharing as one of four priorities in September 2010,32 New Zealand has decided that it should not become a party to the Protocol “until domestic policy issues relating to the Wai 262 claim (the Māori flora, fauna and cultural intellectual property claim before the Waitangi Tribunal), and ambiguity regarding the application of the Protocol to certain sectors (for example, agriculture), are resolved or clarified”.33 The Waitangi Tribunal is expected to report on the Wai 262 claim in 2011.

C. World Intellectual Property Office

The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources (IGC) met in 2010 to continue considering the development of international instruments concerning intellectual property (IP), TK, GR and traditional cultural expressions (TCE).

At the IGC’s May 2010 meeting New Zealand stated that it:

• “was still uncertain that registration was an appropriate option” to address the objective of transparency for TCEs “especially given the concerns of indigenous peoples with regard to registration systems, including the risks of documentation”;34

• supported the draft objectives and principles on GR suggested by Australia (concerning access, use and benefit sharing, patents granted in error, information on GR and TK, international agreements and the promotion of innovation),35 which it later submitted as a working document together with Australia and others,36

• emphasised the importance of work on GRs and “supported further work on defensive protection...to avoid misappropriation of TK and GRs through erroneously granted patents”;37

• noted “further elaboration and finalisation of the draft guidelines for contractual practices” on fair and equitable benefit-sharing, in consultation was stakeholders, “was an essential task to ensure that indigenous and local communities could have the benefit of this resource”;38 and

• saw “further examination of issues relating to disclosure requirements” regarding GRs as “ideal”.39

Discussion on an instrument on TCEs continued in the IGC’s December session.40 It remains to be seen how the IGC’s work on GRs will tie in with the Nagoya Protocol.41

D. World Trade Office

In 2010 discussions continued amongst WTO members, including New Zealand, on whether the Trade Related aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement should be amended to promote the objectives of the CBD. Proposals of relevance to Indigenous peoples include amendments to show the country source of any GR and TK, whether permission was obtained for its use and that benefits are shared with the original owners.42

VII. Significant Decisions of Relevance to New Zealand

A. Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya

In 2010 the African Union endorsed the African Commission’s 2009 ruling in the Endorois Case.43 In the Endorois Case the African Commission found that the Kenyan Government had breached the rights of the Indigenous Endorois community under the African Convention on Human and Peoples’ Rights in evicting them from their lands in order to establish a wildlife reserve. It is the first decision of the African Commission to recognise indigenous peoples’ rights over their traditionally owned lands.. It is also the first time an international tribunal has found a breach of the right to development. In reaching its decision the African Commission made extensive reference to decisions of international human rights bodies and to international human rights instruments, including to the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration’s provisions on land, restitution and compensation.44

VIII. Events/Developments Contributing to the Development of Customary International law and/or of Particular Relevance to New Zealand

During 2010 international human rights monitoring bodies continued to develop jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples, which will be of relevance to New Zealand when it is being reviewed by them and contributing to the development of customary international law in the field. As in previous years, the monitoring bodies continued their strong support for Indigenous peoples’ land, political and cultural rights and international instruments that promote Indigenous peoples’ rights.

A. Human Rights Council Resolution on the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In September 2010 the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples.45 The resolution also shortened the mandate’s title and amended it to refer to ‘peoples’ rather than ‘people’ in conformity with the terminology of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration.46

B. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern about development, including mining projects in Colombia, being undertaken without Indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent.47

C. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women:

• expressed concern about the level of illiteracy of Indigenous women in Panama;48 and

• welcomed Australia’s endorsement of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration.49

D. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) remains one of the most engaged of the international human rights bodies in Indigenous peoples’ issues and rights, not least because it has received a number of communications in relation to Indigenous peoples’ issues under its early warning and urgent action procedure. In 2010 the CERD Committee:

• recommended that Argentina ensure the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting them;50

• expressed concern about the expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands;51

• called for recognition of Indigenous peoples’ legal systems, customs and traditions;52

• requested states to implement international standards in relation to Indigenous peoples such as the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration;53

• expressed concern about the high standards of proof required to be met before states will recognise the relationship between Indigenous peoples and their lands;54

• encouraged states to recognise self-identification as the principal criterion when recognising groups as Indigenous;55 and

• frequently noted concerns with developments taking place on Indigenous peoples’ territories and failures to comply with their right to provide their free, prior and informed consent to such activities.56

E. Committee on the Rights of the Child

The Committee on the Rights of the Child:

• expressed concern about discrimination against Indigenous children;57

and

• recommended that states take action to ensure Indigenous children’s equal access to all children’s rights.58

F. Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee;

• requested Mexico to take necessary steps to ensure consultation with Indigenous peoples in relation to decision making in all areas that have an impact on their rights;59

• recommended that Argentina adopt necessary measures to end evictions and safeguard the property of Indigenous peoples;60 and

• expressed concern about discrimination against Indigenous peoples in Colombia.61

G. Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review

In its Universal Periodic Review, states participating in the Human Rights Council:

• commended Bolivia’s adoption of the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration into law;62

• expressed concern about continued discrimination against Indigenous peoples in Nicaragua;63

• requested Guyana to ratify ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples;64 and

• called on the United States of America to adopt and implement the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration.65

New Zealand also asked other states about their treatment of Indigenous peoples including raising questions about the land issues facing Sami in Sweden.66





Fleur Adcock and Claire Charters*



1 Convention on Biological Diversity (opened for signature 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) [‘CBD’].
2 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples GA Res 61/295, A/RES/61/295 (2007) [‘Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration’].
3 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (opened for signature 4 June 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) [‘UNFCCC’].
4 Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya, 27th Activity Report of African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (2009) [‘Endorois Case’] <http://www.achpr.org/english/ Decison_Communication/Kenya/Comm.%20276-03.pdf> .
5 P Sharples, Minister of Māori Affairs “Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 19-30 April 2010” (media statement, 19 April 2010).
6 Ibid; T Morton, New Zealand Second Secretary New Zealand Mission “UNGA Third Committee, Item 66 a Indigenous Issues” (media statement, 18 October 2010).
7 Sharples, above n 5.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada “Canada’s Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (media statement, 12 November 2010).
11 Barack Obama, United States President “Remarks by the President at the White House Tribal Nations Conference” (media statement, 16 December 2010).
12 Eleven states initially abstained from voting on the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration, two of which have since moved to support it. Thirty-four states were absent from the vote. See “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (2007) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/ declaration.html> .
13 United Nations General Assembly “ Indigenous Issues” UN Doc A/C.3/65/L.22/REV.1 (2010).
14 UNFCCC “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Sixteenth Session” UN Doc FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 (2011) at [69].
15 Ibid at Appendix 1 at [2(c)] and [2(e)], footnote 1. The Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration is also referenced in Section E of the decision concerning the “Economic and social consequences of response measures” at 15.
16 Ibid at Appendix 1 at [2(d)].
17 F Martone “UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” in K Wessendorf (ed) The Indigenous World 2011 (IWGIA, Copenhagen, 2011) at 519.
18 “Cancun agreements hailed by NZ” Radio New Zealand (New Zealand, 2010).
19 See for example, “Cancun Betrayal: UNFCCC Unmasked as WTO of the Sky” (2010) Indigenous Environmental Network <http://redroadcancun.com/?p=1652> . See generally Chris Lang “The Cancun Agreement on REDD: Four Questions and Four Answers” (2010) <http://w w w.redd-monitor.org/2010/12/18/the-cancun-agreement-on-redd-four-questions- and-four-answers/> .
20 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill 2010 [201-2].
21 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination “Decision 1(66): New Zealand Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004” UN Doc CERD/C/66/ NZL/Dec.1 (2005); Rodolfo Stavenhagen “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen” UN Doc UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3 (2006).
22 For critiques of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill see for example, Moana Jackson “A further primer on the foreshore and seabed: The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill” (2010) <http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mj080910.htm> and “Submission on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to the Māori Affairs Select Committee” (2010) Treaty Tribes Coalition <http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/fsttc10.pdf> .
23 James Anaya “Statement of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Professor James Anaya, upon conclusion of his visit to New Zealand” (2010) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/rapporteur/countryreports..htm> .
24 United Nations Human Rights Committee “Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: NEW ZEALAND” UN Doc CCPR/C/NZL/CO/5 (2010) at [12].
25 Ibid at [14].
26 Ibid at [20].
27 Tara Morton, New Zealand Second Secretary New Zealand Mission “UNGA Third Committee, Item 66 a Indigenous Issues” (media statement, 18 October 2010).
28 L Richardson “EMRIP Agenda Item 3 Indigenous Peoples and the right to participate in decision making” (statement by New Zealand, 13 July 2010) <http://www.docip.org/> .
29 Ibid.
30 Tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Decision X/1 “Access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization” (2010) CBD <http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12267> .
31 See generally Patricia Borraz “Convention on Biological Diversity” in K Wessendorf (ed) The Indigenous World 2011 (IWGIA, Copenhagen, 2011) at 526.
32 Jim McLay, New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations “High Level Meeting Of The General Assembly as a Contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity, Thematic Panel” (press release, 22 September 2010) .
33 “Environment: Species Conservation: Genetic Resources (Access and Benefit Sharing)” (2010) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/1- Global-Issues/Environment/7-Species-Conservation/geneticres.php> .
34 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Report of the 16th Session Geneva 3-7 May 2010” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/16/8 (2010) at [103] [‘WIPO Report’].
35 Ibid at [232].
36 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Submission by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United States of America, Geneva 6 May 2010” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/16/7 (2010). See also World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Submission by Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, New Zealand and the United States of America, Geneva 9 December 2010” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/ IC/17/11 (2011).
37 WIPO Report, above n 34 at [232].
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Decisions of the Seventeenth Session of the Committee” (2010) World Intellectual Property Office <http://www.wipo.int/ edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_17/wipo_grtkf_ic_17_ref_decisions.doc> .
41 See for example, Development Agenda Group statement (2010) <http://www.ip-watch.org/ weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/GRDAG-speech.doc> . For a critique by Indigenous peoples see Indigenous peoples’ organisations statement (2010) <http://www.ip-watch.org/ weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/indigenous-statement.pdf> .
42 World Trade Office “Intellectual property differences ‘better illuminated’ – Lamy reports’” (2010) <http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/trip_12mar10_e.htm> .
43 Endorois Case, above n 4.
44 Ibid; Witness “Kenya: Endorois win Major Victory for Indigenous Rights” (2010) <http:// hub.witness.org/RightfulPlace> “Landmark decision rules Kenya’s removal of indigenous people from ancestral land illegal” (2010) Minority Rights Group International <http:// w w w.minorit yrights.org/9587/press-releases/landmark-decision-rules-kenyas-remova l- of-indigenous-people-from-ancestral-land-illegal.html> “Kenya: Landmark Ruling on Indigenous Land Rights” (2010) Human Rights Watch <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/4b71215bc.html> .
45 Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples HRC Res 15/14, A/HRC/RES/15/14 (2010).
46 Ibid. The title of the mandate was changed from the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
47 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: COLOMBIA” UN Doc E/C.12/COL/CO/5 (2010).
48 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “Concluding observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination against Women: PANAMA” UN Doc CEDAW/C/PAN/CO/6 (2010) at [34].
49 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “Concluding observations on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination against Women: AUSTR ALIA” UN Doc CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/6 (2010) at [12].
50 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: ARGENTINA” UN Doc CERD/C/ARG/CO (2010).
51 Ibid.
52 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: GUATEMALA” UN Doc CERD/C/GTM/CO (2010) at [8].
53 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: JAPAN” UN Doc CERD/C/JPN/CO (2010) at [21].
54 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: AUSTR ALIA” UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO (2010) at [13].
55 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: EL SALVADOR” UN Doc CERD/C/SLV/CO (2010) at [12].
56 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Letters: Brazil” 3 May 2010 and United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Letters: Peru” 13 March 2010.
57 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: ECUADOR” UN Doc CRC/C/ECU/CO/4 at [34].
58 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: EL SALVADOR” UN Doc CRC/C/SLV/CO/4 at [92].
59 United Nations Human Rights Committee “Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: MEXICO” UN Doc CCPR/C/MEX/CO (2010) at [22].
60 United Nations Human Rights Committee “Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: ARGENTINA” UN Doc CCPR/C/ARG/CO (2010) at [25].
61 United Nations Human Rights Committee “Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: COLOMBIA” UN Doc CCPR/C/COL/CO (2010) at [25].
62 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: Bolivia” UN Doc A/HRC/14/7 (2010) at [32].
63 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: Nicaragua” UN Doc A/HRC/14/3 (2010) at [70].
64 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: Guyana” UN Doc A/HRC/15/14 (2010) at [70].
65 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: United States of America” UN Doc A/ HRC/WG.6/9/L.9 (2010) at [92.202].
66 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: Sweden” UN Doc A/HRC/15/11 (2010) at [45].

* Fleur Adcock, Ngati Mutunga and English, PhD scholar, Australian National University.
Claire Charters, Ngati Whakaue, Human Rights Officer, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We especially thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the information they provided for this review. The views expressed here are the authors’ own, as are any errors and omissions.