Decisions and Recommendations of the North American
Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus (NAIPC) to the 14th Session of the United Nations
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and to Other Relevant Bodies and Fora
Preamble
“We are at our desperate hour. Our children are committing suicide. We are desperate for a forum. Our children are dying and they [the dominating society] are taking our water…. The elders and spiritual leaders who led the way into the international arena [Fools Crow, Bad Wound, etc.] wanted the correct words and they wanted to uphold the highest principles [for our Nations]. We will always remember. We will never forget.”Phyllis Young, NAIPC Meeting Participant 2015
We are the originally and still rightfully free and
independent nations of Great Turtle Island. We have our own laws given to us by
the Creator, which, through our oral traditions instruct us to live in a
spiritual manner with all living things. We have met in a spiritual manner in
the territory of the Oceti Sakowin. The NAIPC reaffirms the original intentions
of our ancient and continuing international relations as peoples and nations in
the international arena. We acknowledge the ancestors that went to the
international fora in 1920’s such as Deskaheh and
W.T. Ratana, and onward.
This work continues to be guided by prayers, corn pollen, drums and
sacred pipes in support of, for example, the principles expressed in the
Declaration of Continuing Independence issued at the first International Indian
Treaty Conference at Standing Rock in 1974.
We contend that these principles must continue to inform and guide our
decision-‐making and the NAIPC positions advanced in the
international arena. It was a result of
that original intention of continuing independence that the NAIPC did not
support the UN high-‐level plenary meeting in
September of 2014, and does not agree with or concede to efforts by states to
domesticate our fundamental rights, such as the right of self-determination as nations and our treaty rights.
NAIPC is gravely concerned with the abuses committed against
the Oceti Sakowin, which reflect similar abuses against all Indigenous Peoples
on Great Turtle Island. Issues such as fracking, mining, violation of treaties,
and resource extraction, brings attention to the enormity of the issues that
Indigenous Peoples are encountering in the North American region.
Organizational Details
1. The North
American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) met on March 21 and 22, 2015 in
territory of the Oceti Sakowin (Rapid City, South Dakota.) The meeting was hosted by the Defenders of
the Black Hills and sponsored by Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous
Development, Rural America Initiatives, and Inter-‐Tribal
Buffalo Council.
2. The meeting
was opened with a Sunrise Ceremony honoring the Spring Equinox with traditional
song and prayer, in accordance with Oceti Sakowin protocol. The meeting hosts treated the meeting
delegates to meals of buffalo, generously donated by the Inter-‐Tribal
Buffalo Council, a coalition of 56 Indigenous Nations who are revitalizing
healthy buffalo herds, and their sacred relationship to their peoples. All
unused buffalo meat was freely shared with elders, mothers with families, and
others in need.
3. The meeting
was attended by over 39 representatives from 25 Indigenous Nations and
Indigenous Peoples organizations including: National Indian Youth Council,
Inc., Emerging Indigenous Leaders Institute, TONATIERRA, Seventh Generation
Fund, CU-Denver Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous
Law and Politics, Defenders of the Black Hills, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug,
American Indian Movement of Colorado, CHR Program, RST TECRO Program, Indigenous
Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, World Rights Group Consulting and Ochopawace
Nation-‐Treaty 4, Ducon Energy, Poenadu Organic Farms, Okimel
O'otham, Indigenous Law Institute, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Oglala
Lakota/Bearghost Foundation, Cree/Onion Lake Cree Nation,
Anishinaabe/Kitchenuhmaykoosib, Leonard Peltier Grassroots, Hunkpapa Treaty
Council, Standing Rock Nation, and the Leonard Peltier Support Group.
4. The NAIPC
noted their extreme disappointment in the absence of Ed John and Sonia
Smallcombe at the meeting, leaving this regional caucus meeting without any
official representation from the UNPFII. The participants are requesting an
official explanation for this lack of attendance. The participants decided to
issue a communiqué to Ed John to inquire whether he will maintain his
obligation to NAIPC, or if he is prioritizing other entities within his
designated region over this body. NAIPC also reminds this forum that this
entity is the official regional body recognized by ECOSOC for recommendations
to be taken to the UNPFII and other relevant bodies. NAIPC has decided to write
to the Secretary General and the High Commissioner regarding this matter.
5. Participants
selected Debra Harry, Ph.D., Numu-Kooyooe Dukaddo, and Janice
Makokis, BA, MA, LLB, Onihcikiskowapowin (Saddle Lake Cree Nation), Treaty No.
6 to serve as co-chairs for this meeting.
6. Participants
selected Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), Cody Harry (Numu/Diné) and Rubina
Dann (Western Shoshone) to serve as Rapporteurs for this meeting
7. The
participants reviewed 14th session of UNPFII schedule and information sent by
Ms. Smallcombe.
8. UNPFII
Agenda Item 3: Follow-‐up on the recommendations of the
Permanent Forum Agenda Item 3 (a) Outcome of the high-level
plenary meeting also known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.
The NAIPC notes that the Permanent Forum’s recommendations
in relation to the high-level plenary meeting known as
the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (HLPM/WCIP) were blatantly ignored
in the process to develop the outcome document.
The Permanent Forum strongly urged:
“...that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples become the conceptual and normative framework for the outcome document” and “...that [I]ndigenous [P]eoples must have equal participation in the drafting of all documents of the World Conference, including the outcome document” (E/C.19/2015/3).Retrospect shows that these recommendations were disregarded.
On the first point, the UNDRIP was far from the “conceptual
and normative framework” for the outcome document. The foundation of the UNDRIP is the
international legal right of self-determination. This right, upon which all other rights are
anchored, and from which they flow, goes unacknowledged in the outcome
document. And on the second point, the
outcome document was solely drafted by states, without equal participation of
Indigenous Peoples, further disrespecting the Permanent Forum’s recommendation
of “equal participation in the drafting of the...outcome document.”
NAIPC notes that any affirmation of the international
character of Indigenous Peoples and their treaties is absent from the outcome
document. Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay
reminded us on August 7, 2013 that “...treaties remain the cornerstone for the
protection of the identity, land and customs of [I]ndigenous [P]eoples,
determining the relationship they have with the State.”1 The lack of
affirmation of the international character of Indigenous Peoples and their
treaties, further departs from the UNDRIP and its attention to treaties in
Article 37.
The NAIPC also noted that there is not an adequate
expression of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in the outcome document.
Article 20 of the outcome document simply conflates FPIC with commitments of
States to “...consult and cooperate in good faith.” The NAIPC noted how the use
of “consultation” and “cooperation” in “good faith” are often used in domestic
legal regimes to circumvent FPIC.
Finally, the NAIPC further noted that the political and
legal foundation (the doctrine of discovery) that settler-states
use to rationalize their domination, invasion and territory theft in relation
to Indigenous Peoples went entirely unchallenged in the outcome document. The NAIPC noted that the doctrine of
discovery and domination violates international law and stands in contravention
to the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
The NAIPC takes pride in and stands by its decision to call
for a cancellation of a process that is deleterious to the international
Indigenous Peoples movement. We would
like to remind the Permanent Forum that the outcome document is not the NAIPC’s
document, and in fact is not an Indigenous Peoples’ document, as it was
entirely state-drafted and state-voted within the General
Assembly. The NAIPC reiterates that it
did not participate, or lend its free, prior and informed consent to a process
that serves to domesticate the UNDRIP within settler-state
political, legal and policy frameworks.
Given this context, the NAIPC will not be bound by the outcome
document’s limitations and fatal flaws.
Agenda Item 3(b) Post-‐2015 development agenda
We carry the right and responsibility to protect the
holistic and ecological integrity of Great Turtle Island and Mother Earth. We stress that the concept “territorial
integrity of states” is a worldwide undermining of Indigenous Peoples and
nations through processes of state domination. We remind the UN system that it
has the obligation to uphold the UN Charter and, pursuant to it, to promote and
respect the self-‐determination of nations and peoples. Such obligations
are violated through a state oriented perspective of “action plans” and
“development.”
Agenda Item 3(c) Youth, self-harm and suicide
The youth of the NAIPC are acutely aware of the rampant
incidences of suicide and self-harm among Indigenous youth. In fact, our meeting was convened in the
territories of the Oceti Sakowin, where the suicide rate is among the highest
of any peoples. Considering our intimacy
with this issue, we remind the UNPFII that these ills are symptomatic of a
deeper, more foundational problem – colonization and its ongoing effects. The youth of the NAIPC contend that
colonization has set up a framework of domination and subordination between
Indigenous Peoples and settler-‐states, resulting in the denial
of many basic human rights belonging to our nations and peoples such as the
right to live free from domination and dehumanization. It is out of this denial of basic human
rights that health and social ills manifest.
Most notable of the basic human rights that are being denied to
Indigenous Peoples are: the right to
own, use and develop lands, territories and resources which were traditionally
owned; the right to self-‐determination as defined in
international law; and the right to live and be free from discrimination of any
kind, which includes racist doctrines, inter alia, the doctrine of
discovery. The foundational issue of
colonization (domination) and its legacy that manifests as poor health and
social ills for Indigenous Peoples and nations.
When the human rights of Indigenous Peoples are realized,
improvements in their health indicators will follow. For example, because Indigenous Peoples are
land-‐based peoples where land and geographic space are vital
to our physical and cultural well-‐being, the realization of land
rights would address the said social ills on a foundational level.
Further, the youth of the NAIPC reject superficial attempts
to address Indigenous youth self-‐ harm and suicide, such as the
initiatives touted by the United States in their response to the UNPFII
questionnaire (E/C.19/2015/5). These
deceptive attempts only serve to perpetuate the ongoing colonial relationship
between Indigenous Peoples and settler-states, while maintaining
the domination and subjugation of our nations.
A genuine effort to resolve Indigenous youth self-‐harm
and suicide would include the dismantling of the systemic and power structures
that catalyze these social ills.
The NAIPC insists settler states restore the Indigenous
Nations to their lands. The Elders say that by restoring the people to the
land, and by focusing the life-‐force and attention of the young
people on the gift of life in relation to the land, will result in a desire to
affirm rather than end life. Generations of domination and dehumanization,
which have cut the people off the land, have resulted in patterns of self-destruction
in an effort to end the pain of depression and despair. What is being called “suicide” is a direct
consequence of colonization, domination,
and dehumanization. The solutions must address the love of life in connection
with the love of the land so that we are dealing with root causes and not
merely the symptoms.
For the above reasons, the NAIPC insist settler states
support Indigenous-based education programs to
restore traditional livelihood and reaffirm self-determination
of Indigenous nations. NAIPC recommends that the states and the churches put as
much time, effort, energy and monies into assisting with the restoration of
Indigenous peoples to the land, and with the revitalization of Indigenous
languages cultures and spiritual traditions as they put into cutting the people
off from their lands and attempting to destroy our languages, cultures, and
spiritual traditions.
The NAIPC recommends that the UNPFII analyze the direct
impacts of colonization on Indigenous Youth.
9. UNPFII
Agenda Item 5. Half-‐day discussion on the expert
group meeting on the theme “Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People”
The NAIPC rejects the proposal for an optional protocol to
the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples. This decision was made because optional
protocols are irrelevant to declarations.
We fail to see the benefit of an optional (read voluntary) protocol for
a non-legally binding declaration that would address the most
critical issues of our peoples such as rights to lands, territories and
resources, at the domestic level. This
is a non-sequitur and non-sensical proposal. The development of an optional protocol to
the UNDRIP with its suggested focus on “implementation gaps” may also serve as
a distraction to the larger goal of the adoption of a convention.
The NAIPC endorses The American Indian Law Alliance (AILA)
Statement to the UNPFII Expert Group Meeting: Dialogue on an optional protocol
to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples given
January 29, 2015.2 The NAIPC especially
shares the concern that an optional protocol could allow for states to move
disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources from
international processes to domestic judicial and political forums. The NAIPC also has grave concerns regarding the
proposal by Mattias Åhrén in regards to a possible new role of EMRIP in which
it is suggested that only Indigenous Peoples recognized by states would be
eligible to submit complaints to a new optional protocol body, which is in
direct violation of the UNDRIP, our right to full, effective and equal
participation, and violates the right to self-determination.
The NAIPC recommends that the Permanent Forum direct its
attention to advancing the study on treaties through the UN Treaty Bodies.
In relation to the PF addressing the implementation gap via
the United Nations system, the NAIPC notes the PF recommendation No. 55 of
E/C.19/2015/8, that “the Human Rights Council conduct a comprehensive review of
how Indigenous Peoples utilize the existing United Nations treaty bodies and
the universal periodic review system”, but we recommend the addition that this
review is done with a view to create equality and justice for Indigenous
Peoples’ issues and rights. The PF can implement and follow up on its
recommendations, and include an ongoing agenda at annual sessions on the reform
of Treaty bodies to include Indigenous Peoples equals participation in these
fora.
NAIPC further notes the PF recommendation No. 56 that the
Human Rights Council should conduct a study on lands, territories and resources
of Indigenous Peoples3.
10. UNPFII Agenda
Item 6. Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds on the
post-‐2015 development agenda
Report of the Inter-Agency Support Group on
Indigenous Peoples’ Issues annual meeting for 2014
NAIPC notes that the Inter-Agency Support Group
Report, in the accustomed manner of the UN, applies the terms “nation,”
“nations,” and “national” to states, while never applying those terms to
Indigenous nations and peoples. This creates the impression that, for instance,
the term “national” only applies to states, and that there is no distinctive
nationhood and national identity for Indigenous nations and peoples. To the
extent that the word “nation” is ever applied to Indigenous peoples in the
context of the UN, especially in relation to Canada and the United States, the
term “tribal” is added to “nation,” thereby making it seem as if Indigenous
nations are being categorized in a subordinated and domesticated political
position in relation to states. This is but a continuation of the pattern of
what were once termed colonial and colonized nations and peoples, only now
there is the guise of a different terminology in the inter-national
order. The unquestioned and uncritical use of such terminology is part of the
problem that goes unaddressed in such Reports for nations and peoples called
“Indigenous.” The continued use of such terminology is not the path to
resolving the problems faced by our nations and peoples.
11. UNPFII Agenda
Item 7. Human rights
(a) Implementation
of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (with
specific focus on economic, social and cultural rights)
IP have rights including but not limited to human rights,
obligations to the land and right to self-determination.
The NAIPC recommends to the UNPFII that any further
discussion on self-‐determination take into
consideration existing and concurrent work being done in other UN bodies. In August 2014, the Independent Expert to the
Human Rights Council, Alfred-‐Maurice de Zayas released the
report to the General Assembly entitled "Interim report of the Independent
Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”
(A/69/272). This report “…focuses on
the implementation of the right of self-‐determination as key to
the international order envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations...” The NAIPC specifically supports the following
excerpts and recommends that these excerpts inform the UNPFII’s work in
relation to the right of self-‐determination:
3 E/C.19/2015/8
54. The process of
self-determination did not end with decolonization and the
independence of trust territories. Even today there are many unrepresented
peoples and nations, peoples living under occupation and a majority of
indigenous peoples in several continents who aspire to exercise self-determination,
whether in the form of autonomy within existing States or independence. It is
therefore necessary to devote attention to their situation, consult with the
peoples concerned and ensure their right to participate in decision-making,
in particular on all matters that directly concern them, their lands, their
natural resources and their culture.
56. Even today,
indigenous peoples and colonized and occupied peoples are not vested with their
proper status at the national or international level. The United Nations could
grant them such status as a corollary to the right of self-determination
in a manner that allows for their equal participation and their free, prior and
informed consent on all matters that affect them and at all levels within the
United Nations system. Part of the problem with the delayed discussion on the
self-determination of indigenous peoples was the fact that
Governments essentially marginalized them.
58. There are many
open accounts worldwide that should be settled—peacefully—through good-faith
negotiation with indigenous peoples, whose inalienable rights have not been
extinguished through lapse of time or through the racist and factually
inapplicable doctrine of discovery (see E/C.19/2014/3).
64. To address the
multiple and complex issues involved in achieving self-determination, a number of factors have to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. In this context, it would be useful if the General Assembly were to
request the International Court of Justice to issue advisory opinions on the
following questions: What are the criteria that would determine the exercise of
self-determination by way of greater autonomy or
independence? What role should the United Nations play in facilitating the
peaceful transition from one State entity to multiple State entities, or from
multiple State entities to a single entity?
66. Self-‐determination
has emerged as a jus cogens norm and is enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter
as one of the purposes of the Organization. The right is not extinguished with
lapse of time because, just as the rights to life, freedom and identity, it is
too important to be waived. All manifestations of self-‐determination
are on the table: from a full guarantee of cultural, linguistic and religious
rights, to various models of autonomy, to special status in a federal State, to
secession and full independence, to unification of two State entities, to
cross-border and regional cooperation.
67. The
implementation of self-determination is not exclusively
within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but is a legitimate
concern of the international community.
72. The aspiration of
peoples to fully exercise the right of self-‐determination did not end
with decolonization. There are many indigenous peoples, non-self-governing
peoples and populations living under occupation who still strive for self-‐determination.
Their aspirations must be taken seriously for the sake of conflict prevention.
The post-colonial world left a legacy of frontiers that do not
correspond to ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic criteria. This is a
continuing source of tension that may require adjustment in keeping with
Article 2 (3) of the Charter. The doctrine of uti possidetisis obsolete and its
maintenance in the twenty-first century without possibility
of peaceful adjustments may perpetuate human rights violations.
82. Meanwhile, the
principle of territorial integrity no longer possesses a higher status in
international law than the right of self-‐determination, which is
anchored in the Charter of the United Nations and in the International
Covenants on Human Rights. A balancing of rights and interests must be carried
out, always with a view to achieving greater respect for human rights and
widening the democratic space.
85. Bearing in mind
that international law is universal, the criteria for exercising and
recognizing the right of self-‐determination must be applied
uniformly. Otherwise, the credibility and predictability of international law
would be seriously compromised. The modern perspective on self-determination
focuses on its function as a means to promote peace. In short: States have the
sacred duty to ensure peace, while individuals and peoples have the right to
peace.
87. He also
recommends that the General Assembly:
(e) Consider activating the special status of indigenous
peoples and granting them, along with colonized and occupied populations,
standing to participate in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies;
(b) Dialogue with
the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (with specific focus
on economic, social and cultural rights) and the Chair of the Expert Mechanism
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The NAIPC recommends that the High Commissioner’s office
request that the Special Rapporteur continue the work of James Anaya especially
in regards to his inquiry into Canada.
The NAIPC reminds the Special Rapporteur that NAIPC is the
bona fide North American regional representative body for the UN Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues, in accordance with HRC resolution 15/14, 1.a and b
(A/HRC/RES/15/14).
12. UNPFII Agenda
Item 8. Future work of the Permanent Forum, including issues of the Economic
and Social Council and emerging issues
Item 8: Future Work-Discussion on methods of
work
NAIPC is mindful that free and independent Indigenous
Peoples' voices are crucial to the accurate representation of our positions.
We, therefore, remind the UNPFII that Indigenous Peoples have the right to
maximum participation at the UNPFII, and in the entire United Nations system,
without censorship, and without the application of any ideological or
philosophical litmus tests, in deciding who can and cannot participate, and
about who is eligible for funding support in order to participate in UN
processes.
Item 8: Future Work-Discussion on Indigenous
Human development/human rights indicators
The NAIPC calls upon the PF to clearly reject Western
standards and definitions of development. The NAIPC is wary of such standards
being imposed upon Indigenous Peoples, noting “development” is often a synonym
and guise for colonization. There is a
need to ask, “Who defines indicators and by what cultural standards are they
based?” We also note that these imposed Western frameworks have been and
continue to be used to pathologize our peoples, and such indices could be used
to normalize Western frameworks that have already been imposed in a dominating
manner on Indigenous Peoples.
Item 8: Future Work-Study into cross-border
issues, including recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to trade in
goods and services across borders and militarized areas
That the UNPFII should further examine the cross border
issues, and the recommended title of the study should be: Border Crossing and Portability of Indigenous
Peoples Rights.
The NAIPC is gravely concerned that Indigenous Peoples are
being forced to accept and utilize colonial standards of identification when
crossing borders (e.g. tribal enhancement cards).
Further, Indigenous Peoples lands and territories are being heavily militarized. Indigenous Nations and their peoples are continually being harassed and detained at "border crossings" which are located on their traditional territories, in violation of Article 36 (1&2) of the UNDRIP. Indigenous Peoples have the highest numbers of people who cross the borders, for economic and cultural purposes, and when doing so are detained at high levels which violates their human rights, and cultural rights.
NAIPC recommends that the UNPFII oppose Canada’s Bill C-51
and oppose Canada or any state criminalizing Indigenous Nations and Peoples by
calling them “terrorists” for advocating on behalf of their nations, on behalf
of their national territories, and for opposing the desecration and destruction
of the territories of their nations and the delicate ecosystems and waterways
and aquifers in their territories. Labeling Indigenous Peoples’ advocates as
“terrorists” is the modern day version of the way our ancestors were labeled,
in the nineteenth and earlier centuries, as “hostiles,” “barbarians,” and
“heathen savages,” for opposing the imperial colonization of our lands and
territories by the Christian monarchies and empires of that time.
Item 8: Future Work-Study on traditional
knowledge in the framework of the post-2015 development agenda
The NAIPC supports the work being done by Indigenous Peoples
to ensure the right of self-determination be incorporated
into the convention on climate change.
In affirmation of the territorial integrity of Mother Earth.
Item 8: Future Work
NAIPC reiterates its position in 2014 in relation to
hydrofracking. State claims of power to
grant permits for unilateral mineral exploitation—e.g., tar sands oil
exploitation, uranium mining, coal bed methane exploitation, and
hydrofracking—on traditional territories of Indigenous nations is premised on
the claim that Christian discovery gave the “discoverers” the right to “assert
sovereignty” relative to the traditional lands and territories of Indigenous
nations. The NAIPC calls for a complete ban on the method of natural gas
drilling known as “hydraulic fracturing,” or “hydrofracking,” within the
territories of IP, and everywhere hydrofracking will contaminate land, air, and
water. They also call for a complete ban on tar sands oil exploitation, coal
bed methane exploitation, and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. We
call for the UNPFII to convene an Expert Group Meeting on the issue of how to
move off the current fossil fuel habit and how to move as expeditiously as
possible to a global energy program that is based entirely on truly renewable,
non-‐polluting
energy sources. We call upon the UNPFII to convene an Expert Group Meeting on
the issue of hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as
"hydrofracking," tar sands, coal bed methane and the Keystone XL
pipeline to examine the ways that Indigenous Peoples are being impacted or
potentially impacted by these extraction methods, and report to UNDP, UNEP, and
other appropriate UN agencies with a responsibility for environmental and human
rights protections.
Item 8: Future Work
The NAIPC recommends a study on the ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples.
12. NAIPC
Organizational Details
In future meetings, NAIPC is committed to dedicating time in
our agenda to discuss the ongoing struggles within our home territories.
NAIPC reappoints Janice Makokis, BA, MA, LLB, Onihcikiskowapowin
(Saddle Lake Cree Nation), Treaty No. 6, and Debra Harry, Ph.D., Numu-‐Kooyooe
Dukaddo, to serve as Co-Chairs of NAIPC until the next
meeting of the NAIPC in 2016.
Wes George/ Louie Kenney generously extended an invitation
on behalf of the Ochopawace Nation-Treaty 4 to host the
NAIPC meeting in 2016.
************
1http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvent/Page/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13610&LangID=
E1http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvent/Page/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13610&LangID=E
2 http://unpfip.blogspot.com/2015/02/aila-‐statement-‐to-‐unpfii-‐expert-‐group.html
