TONATIERRA: Submission to UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

TONATIERRA  

Community Development Institute  

PO Box 24009  Phoenix, AZ 85074 
www.tonatierra.org 
tonal@tonatierra.org  

 

May 17, 2022

 

 

 

 

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

CERD Secretariat

UNOG-OHCHR

8-14 Avenue de la Paix

CH-1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

 

Dear Members of the Committee,

 

Recommendation for Theme: UN Decolonization Protocols and Systemic Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples 

 

 DOWNLOAD PDF

 

This submission is presented for inclusion in the list of themes to be addressed during the review of the United States of America by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August 2022.

 

Background

 

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) states:

 

Article 15

Pending the achievement of the objectives of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of the 14 December 1960, the provisions of this Convention shall in no way limit the rights of petition granted to these peoples by other international instruments or by the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

 

The reference of Article 15 of the ICERD to objectives to be achieved in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) is predicated by the goal of the eradication of colonialism in all its forms, since:

 

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic cooperation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

 

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

 

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

 

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

 

The passage of UN GA1514 in 1960 marks the beginning of the end to the age of colonialism in terms of the UN system. Consequently, when UNGA 1541 (1960) outlined the criteria for identifying “non-self-governing territories” for the purposes of reporting under section 73(e) of the UN charter to the UN Decolonization Committee, the issue of discrimination in the processes of territorial integration within the colonizing settler state was addressed as follows:

Integration should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.

 

Under 1541, integration within the settler state apparatus was only one of three options identified to correct the crime of colonialism.  The other two are:

Associated Free State Status

Independence

The history of the pathology of racial and cultural supremacy as fundamental to the expansion of the USA across the territories of the Indigenous Peoples on the continent precludes any legitimate claim that the US settler state apparatus achieved “integration” under the guidelines of UNGA 1541.  Sadly, this murderous pathology of institutionalized inequality and racism continues today, evidenced in atrocity after atrocity of mass shootings and violent acts driven by the contemporary colonial-corporate version of “American White Supremacy”.

With the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as Peoples, equal to all other peoples, was established for the first time in the system of UN protocols and procedures. For the first time, the UN system acknowledged that the right of self-determination of all peoples, also included Indigenous Peoples.

The issue that the proposed theme of UN Decolonization Protocols and Systemic Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples intends to explore is the history of systematic discrimination of the US settler state apparatus, et al, in the purported integration of territories and constituencies of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of the continent based on the nefarious, violent, and blatantly discriminatory policies such as Manifest Destiny, the Doctrine of Discovery and the “Blue Water Thesis” aka the Salt Water Doctrine.  That these policies and practices of systematic discrimination continue today and have been normalized within the UN system itself is exemplified by the fact that the UN Decolonization Committee has yet to substantively address a single case of the violation of the right of self-determination of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of the Great Turtle Island [America].

In terms of the US settler state apparatus, this issue is compounded and aggravated by the denial and violation of the Treaties and agreements between the US government and hundreds of Indigenous Nations.  The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty with the Oceti Sakowin (Seven Nations), is an emblematic example of this issue as is the case of the Western Shoshone Nation and the Treaty of Ruby Valley (1863), among many others.

 

 

With respect to the situation of the Western Shoshone in particular, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination formally rendered a decision regarding ongoing actions of the United States and its ongoing failure to implement the recommendations contained in paragraphs 8 to 10 of its Decision 1(68) of 2006 and reiterated "in its entirety'' in paragraph 19 of its 72nd Session Concluding Observations (2008). Instead, the U.S. continues to move forward on highly destructive industrial activities and plans on Western Shoshone lands - threatening to expand the irreparable cultural, spiritual and environmental harm being caused.

 

In fact, on September 28, 2009, the Committee noted the United States' failure to respond to requests for information and expressed concern over its slow pace in implementing recommendations. The Committee called again for the "full implementation" of Decision 1(68) and reiterated its request for information regarding its progress. Furthermore, the Committee expressed the need for "high-level" U.S. officials to consult with the Western Shoshone on matters of resource extraction on Western Shoshone traditional lands.

 

In terms of the proposed theme, what is especially significant about the treatment of the Western Shoshone case by CERD and other UN agencies, is the fact that the US government’s claim for jurisdiction over Western Shoshone territory via “gradual encroachment” is based on the legaloid, discriminatory, and repudiated Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom, via Mexico and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848).  This dimension of the case is not addressed by CERD.  The only territorial franchise that Mexico may have illegally claimed over Shoshone Nation territory at any time is as a successor state in historical consequence to the purported claims of discovery by Spain under the Papal Bulls of Inter Caetera (1493).

 

And although the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues issued a repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom in 2010, the underlying issue of the discrimination and denial of the rights of petition articulated in Article 15 ICERD continues with impunity in the UN decolonization protocols.

 

This must be corrected.

 

CONCLUSION

On October 8, 2021, the UN Human Rights Council Resolution adopted resolution 48/7 titled Negative Impact of the Legacies of Colonialism on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, wherein is stated the following:

Expressing deep concern at the violations of human rights of indigenous peoples committed in colonial contexts, and stressing the need for States to take all measures necessary to protect rights and ensure the safety of indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women and children, to restore truth and justice and to hold perpetrators accountable,

1. Stresses the utmost importance of eradicating colonialism and addressing the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights;

2. Calls for Member States, relevant United Nations bodies, agencies and other relevant stakeholders to take concrete steps to address the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights.

 

Submission to CERD: Concrete steps addressing the systematic negative impact of the legacies of colonialism in the UN system:

1) Recommendation for Theme: UN Decolonization Protocols and Systemic Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples

This theme is respectfully submitted for inclusion in the list of themes to be addressed during the review of the United States of America by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August 2022.

 

2) As a follow up to this theme, CERD should report our recommendations to the UN General Assembly with support for the inclusion of the Sioux Nation, based on the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, in the UN Decolonization procedures which have recently been opened to us with UN Human Rights Council Resolution No. 48/7.

 

3) The CERD should comprehensively address the systematic violation of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the regimes of the colonizing settler states of the Americas and their international borders, as is exemplified in the Western Shoshone case and the border between US-Mexico established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848).

 

4) For the purposes of discussion on this theme, the recommendations of the 1999 UN Treaty Study by Dr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez should be integrated as a substantive foundation for review, discussion, and effective action to address the legacies of institutionalized colonialism in the UN system.

 

 Links:

PRESS RELEASE

Western Hemisphere Alliance of Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples Issues Declaration

*******************

The Geography of Self Determination

TONATIERRA

Wallmapuche: Preliminary Comment on the New Draft Political Constitution of Chile

PRELIMINARY COMMENT ON ARTICLE 21 OF THE DRAFT OF THE NEW POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF CHILE RELATED TO THE RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO LANDS, TERRITORIES AND THEIR RESOURCES.

 

Aucán Huilcamán

Expert in International Law

May 8, 2022

 DOWNLOAD PDF

Beginning with the first paragraph of article 21, the wording, content and scope, is sufficiently ambiguous. Considering that the question is not only the “right to the lands, territory and their resources”, but rather, the essential issue lies in the "restitution of the lands, territories and their resources" that were "taken, confiscated and occupied, without the consent of the Indigenous Peoples".  In the case of the Mapuche, this occurred during the so-called "Pacification of the Araucanía".

In addition, the right to lands, territories and their resources as presented, places this right in the same constitutional context as the "right to housing". The great difference here lies in the fact that the Mapuche have indigenous rights of ancestral territory and resources while the Chilean citizen will have access to the right to housing only after it has become established in the political constitution of the country.

 

Next, the second paragraph of the same article delegates the power and authority over this issue to the Chilean State, especially to the parliament, and it is enough to note that with a parliament that is pro "denialism" like the current one (2022-2025) the results would be completely adverse for the Indigenous Peoples. The second paragraph refers to the concept "land". Again, that paragraph falls below the standard of rights now achieved in contemporary international law and by way of background, Article 28 and other provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples go much further.

 

The third paragraph establishes that "restitution constitutes a preferred mechanism of reparation and the restitution of public utility." The subparagraph does not indicate whether the restitution is that derived from the system of "Merced Titles", which represents a reductionism of Mapuche lands, nor does it indicate the type of land and territory, given that in the Mapuche case, there are around 4 legal categories of land and territory. In addition, the issue is not that of the “public interest”, but rather, the legitimate right of an Indigenous People to the restitution of what is rightfully theirs, while what is common and legally public, is associated with the interests of the state.

 

Likewise, the formulation of the fourth paragraph is very similar to the language of the ILO Convention 169 and this international instrument is ceasing to have validity and interest and effectiveness on the part of the Indigenous Peoples, simply because it has been superseded by other emerging norms regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially in terms of lands, territories and resources.

 

In the four paragraphs of the draft, "all Indigenous Peoples" have been placed within the same logic and the same context, even though not having similarities in the scope of law and the history of each Indigenous People.

 

The version and historical vision of the "old indigenism" of (José Aylwin and José Bengoa) established in the Truth and New Deal report, during the government of Ricardo Lagos, where everything was said and yet nothing was accomplished, is repeated. As a Commissioner, I did not agree (see additional report).

 

It should be opportunely reaffirmed that the Mapuche People currently have a "special legal status", which originates from the celebration of "Parliaments or Treaties" that are now recognized in two norms of international law and cannot be omitted at the moment of making decisions about the territory and its resources. In addition, said recognition by international law grants and recognizes permanent sovereignty to the Mapuche People over its territory and its resources, which is intrinsically related to the right to self-determination.

 

In the draft of the new constitution, there is included language that affirms that the international human rights treaties "principles and customs shall enjoy constitutional status." If these matters were given actual application to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Mapuche, the ambiguity of the article and mentioned paragraphs would thus be avoided.

 

Despite the fact that the Conventional members, including those with indigenous "reserved seats" began their mandate with a blank page and differ from other international experiences on new political constitutions (Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela among others) all of these initiatives were prior to the progress of international law in terms of Indigenous Peoples. In this regard, international law reestablished the "right to self-determination" without any qualification, the "restitution, reparation and compensation of the lands, territories that were taken, confiscated and occupied without indigenous consent", the recognition of the " property or intellectual sovereignty", the "access, control, utility, participation and use of genetic resources", among others, which sets the bar very high for the Conventional and Chile as a State in terms of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the Mapuche in particular.

 

The excessive reaction of the draft conventionalists linked to the Chilean political right, in their claims, only reveal their absolute ignorance of the progress of international law relevant to the Indigenous Peoples and especially in terms of the Mapuche Nation.

 

Unfortunately, the Conventionalists of National Renewal RN, Independent Democratic Union UDI, Republicans, part of the Socialist Party PS, part of the Party for Democracy PPD, and others, lack knowledge, arguments and only act in the "logic and doctrine of historical Negationism " with regards to the Indigenous Peoples and especially they suffer from arguments in relation to the history and the indigenous rights that affirm the Mapuche People in the Wallmapuche. Although this is not only a matter of ignorance, but reveals the conflicts of territorial patrimonial interests in the Wallmapuche, colonial interests that were acquired by force and violence and are the causes of the current tensions and controversies.

 

Finally, the Conventionalists of National Renewal RN, Independent Democratic Union UDI, PPD, Republicans and others, must overcome their position of "Deniers" and contribute to the search for understanding and Peace with the Indigenous Peoples and with the Mapuche in particular.

 

Those reactions which are devoid of arguments from individuals, business leaders and political parties, are simply a move for political advantage to reaffirm their position of rejection of the new political constitution. As eloquent example, we have Juan Sutil ( CPC) who is now asking for an indigenous consultation for the adoption of the draft constitutional norms. However, he has denied the right of consultation of the Mapuche at the time of the implementation of the economic investment projects on the Chol Chol River, the Imperial River and others, despite the fact these development projects will harm many Mapuche communities.

 

Article 21 and its four paragraphs of the draft of the new Chilean political constitution, relating to lands, territories, and their resources, are lukewarm at best - a ploy for the political right and those who have conflicts of patrimonial interests in the Wallmapuche or southern macrozone - so they can say that they are supporting an "indigenist political constitution".  In reality, that could only be said and accepted by someone who is uninformed about the evolution of international law regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and international legal practice on the continent and in the contemporary world.

 

 

Wallmapuche, Rimuguen Kuyen 2022.

 

###

UN Treaty Study Final Report by Miguel Alfonso Martínez, Special Rapporteur (1999)

DOWNLOAD PDF

HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements
between States and indigenous populations
Final report by Miguel Alfonso Martínez, Special Rapporteur

 

 

“The Special Rapporteur notes, however, that recognition of "autonomy" for Indigenous peoples within the State (whatever powers or restrictions thereto are established), most probably will not automatically end State aspirations to eventually exert the fullest authority possible (including integrating and assimilating those peoples), nor, in that case, nullify whatever inalienable rights these people may have as such.”

 

******************

 

“The Special Rapporteur also harbors no doubts concerning the much debated issue of the right to self-determination. Indigenous peoples, like all peoples on earth, are entitled to that inalienable right. The United Nations Charter in Article 1 gives blanket recognition of this right to all peoples (enshrining it as a principle of contemporary international law) as does Article 1 common to both International Covenants on Human Rights. This right is also expressly recognized for indigenous peoples in Article 3 of the Draft Declaration.  In his view, any contradiction that may emerge between the exercise of said right by Indigenous peoples in present-day conditions and the recognized right and duty of the States in which they now live to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity, should be resolved by peaceful means first and foremost via negotiations-- through adequate conflict-resolution mechanisms (either existing or to be established); preferably within the domestic jurisdiction and always, with effective participation by Indigenous peoples.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wallmapuche: Comentario Preliminar sobre el borrador de la nueva consitucion Chilena

COMENTARIO PRELIMINAR SOBRE EL ARTICULO 21 DEL BORRADOR DE LA NUEVA CONSTITUCION POLITICA RELATIVO AL DERECHO A LAS TIERRAS, TERRITORIOS Y SUS RECURSOS DE LOS PUEBLOS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS

 

Aucán Huilcamán

Experto en Derecho Internacional.

 

El inciso primero, del artículo 21. - tanto, su redacción, contenido y alcance, resulta suficientemente ambiguo. Considerando que no es el derecho a las tierras, territorio y sus recursos únicamente, sino, el asunto esencial, radica en la "Restitución de las tierras, territorios y sus recursos" que fueron "tomado, confiscado y ocupado, sin el consentimiento de los Pueblos Indígenas". En el caso Mapuche, la denominada "Pacificación de la Araucanía". Además, si fuere el derecho a las tierras, territorios y sus recursos, lo ubica en el mismo contexto Constitucional al "derecho a la vivienda", la gran diferencia, radica en que los Mapuche tuvieron territorio y sus recursos y el ciudadano Chileno, accederá al derecho a la vivienda, luego que se establezca en la Constitución Política.

 

Seguidamente, el inciso segundo del mismo artículo le entrega la potestad y facultad al Estado Chileno, especialmente al parlamento y basta que ese parlamento sea pro "negacionismo" como el actual (2022-2025) para que los resultados sean completamente adversos. El inciso segundo, hace referencia del concepto "tierra". Adema, ese inciso, está por debajo de los derechos alcanzados en el derecho internacional contemporáneo, a modo de antecedente, el artículo 28 y otras disposiciones de la Declaración de Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas van mucho más allá.

El inciso tercero, establece que la "restitución constituye un mecanismo preferente de reparación y restitución de utilidad pública". El inciso no señala, si la restitución es aquella derivada de los "Títulos de Merced", que representa el reduccionismo sobre las tierras Mapuche, tampoco, señala el tipo de tierra y territorio, en vista que en el caso Mapuche, persisten alrededor de 4 categorías jurídicas de tierras y territorio. Además, no es de interés público, sino, el legítimo derecho de un Pueblo a la restitución de lo suyo, lo público común y jurídicamente, está asociado al interés del estado.

 

Asimismo, la formulación del inciso cuarto es muy similar al lenguaje del Convenio 169 de la OIT y este instrumento internacional, está dejando de tener vigencia e interés y eficacia de parte de los Pueblos Indígenas, simplemente, porque ha sido superado por otras normas emergentes, relativo a los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, especialmente, en materia de tierras, territorios y recursos.

 

En los cuatro incisos, se ha puesto en la misma lógica y en los mismos contextos a "todos los Pueblos Indígenas", no teniendo similitud en el ámbito del derecho y la historia de cada Pueblo. Se repite la versión y visión histórica del "viejo indigenismo" de (José Aylwin y José Bengoa) establecido en el informe Verdad y Nuevo Trato, durante el gobierno de Ricardo Lagos, en donde se dijo de todo y quedo en nada y del cual no estuve de acuerdo como Comisionado (ver informe adicional).

Cabe reafirmar oportunamente que el Pueblo Mapuche en la actualidad tiene un "estatus jurídico especial", que se origina de la celebración de los "Parlamentos o Tratados" que, ahora están reconocidos en dos normas del derecho internacional y no se podría omitir a la hora de tomar decisiones sobre el territorio y sus recursos. Además, dicho reconocimiento de parte del derecho internacional le otorga y reconoce soberanía permanente al Pueblo Mapuche sobre su territorio y sus recursos, relacionado intrínsecamente con el derecho a la libre determinación.

 

En el borrador de la nueva constitución, se ha incluido que, los tratados internacionales de derechos humanos sus "principios y costumbre gozaran de rango constitucional". Asuntos aplicables a los Pueblos Indígenas y los Mapuche, así, se evitaría la ambigüedad del artículo e incisos mencionados.

 

A pesar de que los Convencionales, incluidos los "escaños reservados" iniciaron su mandato con una hoja en blanco y ha diferencias de otras experiencias internacionales sobre nuevas constituciones políticas, (Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela entre otros) todas ellas fueron previo al progreso del derecho Internacional. A este respecto, el derecho internacional restableció el "derecho a la libre determinación" sin calificación alguna, la "restitución, reparación e indemnización de las tierras, territorios que fueron tomado, confiscado y ocupado sin el consentimiento indígena", el reconocimiento de la "propiedad o soberanía intelectual", el "acceso, control, utilidad, participación y uso de los recursos genéticos",  entre otros, lo que pone a los Convencionales y a Chile como "Estado" la vara muy alta en materia de los derechos de los Pueblo Indígenas y de los Mapuche en especial.

 

La reacción desmedida de los convencionales vinculados a la derecha política Chilena, en sus reclamos, solo ponen de manifiesto su ignorancia absoluta del progreso del derecho internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas y en especial con el Pueblo Mapuche.

 

Lamentablemente los Convencionales de Renovación Nacional RN, Unión Demócrata Independiente UDI, Republicanos, parte del Partido Socialista PS, parte del Partido por la Democracia PPD, y otros, carecen de conocimientos, argumentos y solo actúan en la "lógica y la doctrina del Negacionismo histórico" con los Pueblos Indígenas y en especial adolecen de argumentos en relación a la historia y los derechos que le asisten al Pueblo Mapuche en el Wallmapuche. Aunque no solo es desconocimiento, sino, se ponen de manifiesto los conflictos de intereses patrimoniales territoriales en el Wallmapuche y que se adquirieron por la fuerza y la violencia y son las causas de las actuales tensiones y controversias.

 

Finalmente, los Convencionales de Renovación Nacional RN, Unión Demócrata Independiente UDI, PPD,  Republicanos y otros, deben superar su posición de “Negacionistas" y contribuir a la búsqueda del entendimiento y la Paz con los Pueblos Indígenas y con los Mapuche en particular.

 

Las reacciones carentes de argumentos de personas, lideres de empresas y partidos políticos, simplemente es un aprovechamiento político para reafirmar su posición de rechazo a la nueva constitución política. Es el ejemplo elocuente de Juan Sutil CPC, que ahora está pidiendo consulta indígena por las adopciones de proyectos de normas constitucionales. Sin embargo, él no acepta la consulta Mapuche, al momento de la implementación de sus proyectos de inversión económica sobre el Rio Chol Chol, Río Imperial y otros, a pesar de que dañará a muchas comunidades Mapuche.

 

El artículo 21 y sus cuatro incisos del borrador de la nueva constitución política Chilena, relativos a las tierras, territorios y sus recursos, son suficientemente tibios, para que la derecha política y los que tienen conflictos de intereses patrimoniales en el Wallmapuche o macrozona sur, digan que están frente a una "constitución política indigenista", eso solo lo puede decir y aceptar un desinformad@ de la evolución del derecho internacional y de la práctica jurídica internacional en el continente y el mundo contemporáneo.

Wallmapuche, Rimuguen Kuyen 2022.

 

 Naciones Unidas

Reporte Final:
Estudio sobre los tratados entre los Estados y Los Pueblos Indigenas 1999

“Pero el Relator Especial advierte que el reconocimiento de una "autonomía" de las poblaciones indígenas dentro del Estado (cualesquiera que sean los poderes o las restricciones que conlleve), con toda probabilidad no va a suponer el fin automático de las aspiraciones de los Estados a ejercer en último término la máxima autoridad posible (incluida la integración y la asimilación de esas poblaciones), ni va a anular los derechos inalienables que esos pueblos puedan poseer como tales.”

 

*************

“Además, el Relator Especial no alberga ninguna duda con respecto al tan discutido problema del derecho a la autodeterminación. Los pueblos indígenas, como todos los pueblos de la tierra, tienen ese derecho inalienable. El artículo 1 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas reconoce ese derecho a todos los pueblos, sin excepciones (de hecho, lo considera como un principio propio del derecho internacional contemporáneo), al igual que hace el artículo 1 común a los dos Pactos Internacionales sobre Derechos Humanos. Además, este derecho se les reconoce explícitamente a los pueblos indígenas en el artículo 3 del proyecto de declaración. A juicio del Relator Especial, cualquier contradicción que pueda percibirse entre el ejercicio de este derecho por las poblaciones indígenas en las condiciones actuales y el derecho y el deber reconocidos de los Estados en los que viven de proteger su soberanía y su integridad territorial deberá resolverse por medios pacíficos, en primer lugar y ante todo mediante negociaciones, pero también mediante los adecuados mecanismos de resolución de conflictos (los existentes o los nuevos que puedan establecerse). Lo mejor sería que pudiera hacerse dentro de la jurisdicción doméstica y, en todo caso, con la participación efectiva de los propios pueblos indígenas.”