Author (s): Renato Tapia Levaggi
declare last week that the opinion of burglary adopted by a majority in the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws, Aug. 6 could set up a scenario of defeat for the interests of indigenous peoples should be approved by the plenary. Conversely, we express our conviction about the approval of emphasis would respond positively to the demands and expectations of indigenous peoples, as well as an opportunity for Congress to act in an inclusive way and respectful of ratified international instruments, such as Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, for example.
In that sense, not having discussed this issue at the plenary session this past week and to the extent that neither will be discussed this week, it is pertinent to make some criticisms of the content of the report of trespassing. That for the purpose of expressing an opinion not to be confused with a blind defense of the insistence, but that certainly is convinced that the search involves a setback that downplays the content of the right to consultation of indigenous peoples.
Some points that should be taken into account are as follows:
• Article 2 In the opinion of burglary deleted paragraph in the bill originally approved Autograph by Congress stated that "We also must carry out consultation on the plans, programs and projects of national and regional development that directly affect these rights." Considering that the ILO Convention 169 states that "they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programs subject to national and regional affect them directly ", the suppression of rights is limited.
• In the same article of the raid, it added a paragraph that states that" The legislation of general application will only be consulted on those aspects involving direct modification of the legal situation of indigenous peoples on issues relevant and substantial way. "The first part of this quote is clearly restrictive scope of application of the rule, what would happen, for example, to a standard prohibiting the use of native language in any state body? This measure would not alter directly the legal situation of indigenous peoples, but certainly would affect them. On the other hand, the vagueness of the phrase "on relevant and substantial way" is more than evident.
• Complete with Article 2, we mention that the point that "The consultation on land issues is appropriate only in designated areas on the property to indigenous peoples" is unrelated to the Convention 169 ILO when it states that "governments shall respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values \u200b\u200bof the peoples concerned of their relationship with lands or territories, or both, as the case may occupy or use in any other way. "
• Article 9 of the raid was deleted the phrase" administrative remedies were exhausted before this body, it should go before the competent courts, "referring to the decision of the specialized technical body which evaluates the request for consultation. This eliminates a second instance and is left to state decision-making on an issue that has as part of indigenous peoples on the one hand and the State itself, on the other.
• Finally, Article 15 of the raid, referring to the decision, has removed the protection provided by the original autograph for cases where no agreement is reached, "corresponding to state agencies to take all necessary measures to ensure the collective rights of indigenous or native peoples. " Instead, states that "The state will decide the implementation of the measure, favoring the public interest and the nation, establishing the participation of indigenous peoples in the benefits and, where appropriate, equitable compensation for any damage that may occur ". We must point out that the provision of benefits and allowances is consistent with the ILO Convention 169, but the abolition of the State's obligation to adopt measures necessary to guarantee rights is, to say the least, unnecessary and could be labeled as malicious.
hope these comments are taken into account by the Congress to opt out of the adoption of an opinion which implies a serious setback for the autograph of Act originally passed by them. Also imply, as already mentioned, give back to indigenous demands, despite the problems the original document may contain and should be corrected later, have consensus found in it, have been heard for the first time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment