2nd Meeting, 19th Session Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP)

Welcome back, everyone. And we will now resume the consideration of this agenda item. And we shall continue with the speakers list from this morning. May I now give the floor to National Indigenous Women's Rights?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Plume, the National Indigenous Women's Rights Alliance, welcomes this important study and respectfully recommends that it explicitly recognize the current immigration enforcement crisis in the United States as a contemporary manifestation of structural conflict affecting Indigenous peoples. I speak not only as an indigenous leader, but as the granddaughter of an indigenous ex-bracero. My grandfather left his Tepehuan community in Mexico during the 1940s under the first U.S.-Mexico guest worker program and.

Never returned home.

His story reflects a long history of the United States pulling indigenous labor when it is economically needed, then pushing our peoples out through policies of exclusion, detention, incarceration, and deportation. Today, intensified ICE operations are creating a climate of fear for Indigenous migrant workers and their families. Indigenous women and children are bearing the consequences through family separation, trauma, economic insecurity, and the fear of accessing schools, health care, and essential services. this extends beyond immigrant workers. Indigenous peoples are being targeted because of their appearance. Native Americans, including citizens of federally recognized and unrecognized tribes who have never crossed an international border, they've been stopped, questioned, and detained because they are perceived to be foreign. This racial profiling harms Indigenous peoples across both rural and urban communities and reinforces generations of colonial violence. We respectfully encourage MRIP to recognize that immigration enforcement policies that generate widespread fear, displacement, family separation, racial profiling, and barriers to the exercise of Indigenous peoples' collective rights constitutes a contemporary form of structural conflict that merits attention.

Thank you. You've exhausted your time. I now give the floor to Association of Indigenous Small-Numbered People of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation, RAIPON.

Distinguished Chair, I represent-- I'm making a statement on behalf of the Russian Association of Small Indigenous Peoples, brings together 40 peoples and more than 30 regional organizations. Two minutes do not give us a possibility to make an assessment of the study. This is why we will be focusing on key problems. First, we insist that before the study is complete, you would remove assessments of the situation of indigenous peoples and Russians based on statements made by anti-Russian, Ukrainian, and Brussels-based organizations. This is not a human rights approach, but a cover-up for geopolitics. foreign organizations cannot make an assessment of human rights in Russia. And only those organizations then are organized can do that. Second, the study is based on statements by immigrant communities that imitate institutions of indigenous peoples in Russia. They are based abroad. They do not have any links to our country, and they do not participate in national treaty processes of Russia. And carry out activities to undermine the state's sovereignty. We can find many confirmations for that. This is something that runs counter to the UN Charter and violates international law. Third, the study has noted a lack of effective mechanism for collecting and verifying information. And we would like to recommend to the expert mechanism to introduce a procedure for verifying sources of studies. We also would like to invite to include the position of representative bodies of indigenous peoples, situation of the rights, that their statements are verified, and verification of status and the mandate of sources is not an option, but a condition for reliable studies and trust. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Alliance Internationale pour la Defense de la Liberte. It's a joint statement with IDL International Foundation. It seems they are not in the room. I go to the next speaker, is the Association Tchangosienne de France. It's a joint statement with Association Changuian de France and Indigenous Changuian people. If you are in the room, please, you have the floor. It seems they're not in the room too. I now give the floor to Indigenous Global Confederation. It's a joint statement with the Divisi Masaba Foundation. These two is not in the room. I now give the floor to Forum Mediterranean for the promotion of the city. You have the floor. Okay, I give the floor. It seems they have got the spoken this morning. I now give the floor to the next on the list, which is Aguel Foundation. There are two not on the list. Now I give the floor to Aceh, Sumatra Indigenous People.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of expert of mechanisms, my name is Tengku Fajri Krong, speaking on behalf of Aceh, Sumatra Indigenous People. More than 20 years after the 2005 MOU Helsinki peace agreements with Indonesia, the indigenous people of Aceh continue to experience the lasting consequence of armed conflicts. Although the fighting has ended, many commitments made during the process remain unfulfilled. Our indigenous community continue to face restrictions affecting our political our right, cultural identity, and our ability to freely determine our own future. The promised Human Rights Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have not delivered the justice that many victims continue to seek. For many families, accountability remains absent. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized that indigenous people have the right for self-determination. This includes the right to freely determine our political status and to pursue our economic, social, and cultural development. For the people of Aceh, meaningful peace cannot exist without respect for this fundamental principle. We believe that the people of Aceh have the right to inherent right to decide their own future, including the right to pursue independent, true, peaceful, democratic, and internationally recognized process consistent with international law and the principle of the UN Charter. We respectfully urge EMRIP to continue studying post-conflict situations where indigenous people like Aceh, Papua, and Malucas in Indonesia, remain unable to fight.

I'm sorry, you've exhausted your time. I now give the floor to Fundacion El Poder de Una Urami. They're not in the room. Then I give the floor to Societe Algerienne Savante. We give them the floor. Oh, okay. Seems they've got the floor this morning. I now give the floor to Uliti Falop Community Action Program.

Thank you, Chair. I am one of the indigenous fellows from the Federated States of Micronesia, and I'd like to highlight the fact that I'm from the Pacific Ocean and the islands. I welcome this report. It's very vital to especially the legacies that we are encountering from post-conflict, most especially for one of our largest lagoon, which sustains the marine habitat and the livelihood of our island people. That is our largest population. It is being impacted by the World War II wrecks, and it's impacting our livelihoods for those people. In addition, our relatives to the east, the Marshall Islands, are being impacted from the nuclear legacy that they're encountering. And this is being impacted by sea level rise. Now, the dome is actually cracking as we speak, and it's leaking into the ocean. As you can understand, for the Pacific Ocean, that's our livelihood. And for my elders, it has displaced them and it's caused an intergenerational trauma because of cancer issues as well as displacement. They will not return to their homelands in this lifetime. And this study highlights those issues under the framework of transitional justice. So we appreciate this report. I recognize that there are issues, but I understand that we can do this in a meaningful dialogue. And I welcome that report and I hope those of us who can endorse this and pass it on to the council to really reinforce what our council highlighted in 57/26 on transitional justice. I stand in solidarity with our relatives from Papua, Kanak, Mahonoi, Kanaka Maoli, because my people are oceans people, and they're from Remadav. And I also would like to extend an invitation to our Pacific rep to come to the 55th Pacific Island Forum Summit to meet with our 18 leaders so that they can understand how our rights can be respected. Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank you. I now give the floor to New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Lee and I'm a proud Kamilaroi Wodjera man from Australia. NSW welcomes the expert mechanism study and supports its findings. Accordingly, we additionally recommend that states recognise structural and ongoing forms of conflict affecting Indigenous peoples. that legislative and administrative measures affecting Indigenous lands, territories and resources not proceed without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples, and that states protect and strengthen mechanisms for Indigenous land restitution and refrain from measures that diminish Indigenous land rights. Mr. Chair, for Aboriginal people in Australia, the conflict of colonisation did not end in the past. It continues through unresolved land claims, the erosion of decision-making authority and the ongoing struggle to realise self-determination. In New South Wales, the Crown Land Management Amendment Bill has been advanced without meaningful engagement with the Aboriginal Land Rights Network. The bill raises serious concerns regarding one of Australia's most significant land restitution mechanisms. My council has also opposed its participation in Australia's National close the Gap framework because commitments to partnership and shared decision making are increasingly not being matched by practice. Your report reminds us that lasting peace requires more than absence of violence. It requires justice, restitution and the meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions that affect their futures. UNDRIP, Australia opposed UNDRIP in 2007, Mr. Chair, although it later endorsed the declarations, its standards have never been incorporated into domestic law. The true measure of Australia's commitment to Indigenous rights will not be found in international statements, but in its willingness to implement those rights at home. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Comunitat Kichwa Otavalo. You have the floor.

Hello. Can you hear me? My name is Pacha Taran. I am from the Quechua people of Otavalo, and I am here to speak about the systematic violation of human rights, particularly the right to life, to organization, association, and political participation by peasants and indigenous organizations in Ecuador, violated by the government of Daniel Noboa. I want to invoke the rights of the peoples of Ecuador and the indigenous peoples of Ecuador. We are confronting a repressive criminalization campaign. targeting organizations and displacement from ancestral lands. Sawata, Kachi, Chawan and other regions are affected. Naboa's government is using the institutions of the state to undermine, persecute, stigmatize, block bank accounts, targeting social leaders, as is the case of the chair of Finesin, Guido Parawachi. The official names of Kanadi not able to, we can't cite them because there are problems with Kanadi, but the bilingual society I represent has denounced the targeting as well as the indigenous university of Malte Watzi. The political obstruction of opposition parties is also something I denounce and the people, the popular people's authorities are also being undermined. The illegal imprisonment of peasant leaders and mayors such as Kilas Alvarez in high security prisons despite there isn't any sentence associated with them. These measures affect indigenous peoples, particularly women, who are seeking to organize and defend their land and nature. In Ecuador, we have a government that violates rights, and we call for information to be given and extracted from the Ecuadorian state concerning these complaints. The UN charters on peasants' rights and other international instruments must be enforced. There must be an official visit to Ecuador considered and that we share the chair interrupts.

I now give the floor to Azawad Solidarity. if you are in the room.

Chairperson, Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen, dear experts, my name is Risa Ebanja. I am a representative of Azawad Solidarity and I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Tuareg people today to raise the alert concerning a silent genocide that is taking place. According to the records we've collected, our people have been subject to waves of successive repression. This historic trauma is currently reaching a historic threshold. Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso are all joining forces, as well as ex-Wagner forces It is all tantamount to ethnic cleansing. This is a historic ancestral interference under the pretext that they are defending their cultures, their nomadic rights of life and their legitimate rights in their land. On the ground, we are targeted by airstrikes and bombardments. violation of the Oslo agreements, as well as night drone attacks, which are carried out by those in the pay of Russian forces. There are extrajudicial executions, massive pillaging, and systematic rape used as a demographic weapon of war. Through these actions and these repeated and targeted attacks, The Malian state is behaving as a genuine terrorist state. Faced with these crimes violating articles 7 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, we are mobilizing ourselves. We have organized peaceful demonstrations across the world, in particular in front of the Russian embassy in Paris, and we have lodged a detailed complaint with the ICJ's prosecutor on this 14th of June 2025. Three U experts,

the chair intervenes.

At your time, I now give the floor to Indigenous Peoples' Rights International, IPRI.

Here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Indigenous Peoples Rights International welcomes AMRIP's continued efforts to strengthen the protection of Indigenous human rights defenders. Evidence generated through IPRI's Indigenous-led documentation system demonstrates that across the 709 documented incidents, We have supported 103 cases of indigenous defenders facing increasing criminalization, threats, arbitrary detention, violence, and killings for peacefully defending the rights of their peoples, including the right to land, territories, resources, and self-determination. These attacks are not isolated incidents. They reveal the persistent failures to implement international human rights obligations and the UNDRIP. IPRIP respectfully makes two recommendations. First, to encourage MRIP to develop practical guidance for states on culturally appropriate protection measures for Indigenous human rights defenders, designed in partnership with Indigenous peoples and recognizing the collective nature of Indigenous rights, leadership and governance. Second, we call on States to end the criminalization of Indigenous human rights defenders by reviewing laws, policies and practices that are used to suppress the legitimate exercise of Indigenous rights. States must also ensure prompt investigation into attacks, accountability for perpetrators and effective remedies for victims. Protecting Indigenous defenders requires more than emergency response. It requires full respect to their rights to self-determination, lands, territories and resources, and to free, prior and informed consent. These rights are essential safeguards against violence, reprisals, and conflict. Protecting Indigenous human rights defenders is not only a legal obligation under international human rights law, it's essential to protecting Indigenous peoples, strengthening democratic societies, and ensuring that human rights are effectively realized for present and future generations. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians. It seems they are not in the room. I now give the floor to Barrio Imbaki. These two is not in the room. I now give the floor to Colonialismo Osteo-Ecasceta, Zentroja, Concilio, India Exterior. By Mario Agreda.

Thank you very much, President. My name is Mario Adrego, and I'm here to speak against systemic colonialism. We have seen a systematic process going back for half a century. Many people use superfluous words to blight us with negative agendas. We want to go back to the soul of the Indian people. the children, the boys and the girls' voices must connect us to the Holy Spirit without the colonial permission that has, and bending the needs of the colonial permission. We do not have any religious, philosophical or political philosophy that is Judeo-Christian that can speak to this, that has been blighted our continent. through the colonial process, all of this has gone against the wisdom of the natural people. The wisdom of the people is not to be systematically imprisoned and punished and repressed. We are free as the river, as the wind, as the earth, as love. We must be that free because our ancestors over the centuries have managed to blend with nature to produce maize, papa, chocolate and other crops in a proportion which scientific research has considered to be around 70 per cent of the food now consumed by the entire of humanity. We must put the record straight historically that we must in no context or scenario include those as a bequeathal of the Western civilization. Nobody has the right to life. We must understand that if I give you my word, I give you my soul, and this is my word, this is my people, my soul, my root, the sovereignty of the indigenous people, for the sovereignty of food, for the sovereignty of nature, I speak. Thank you, Chair.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Interregional Public Organization, Union of Indigenous Small Numbered People, SUEIS. You can take the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. I represent Russian Organization of Indigenous Peoples, SOYUZ. We support the conclusions that conflicts affecting Indigenous Peoples have deep historic, social, economic grounds and require comprehensive approach. We believe that the survey on the rights of indigenous peoples in conflict situations should be complemented with analysis of institutional mechanisms that ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in decision making, something that can contribute to prevention of conflicts. We're convinced that the studies of the expert mechanism should be based on similar methodological approaches to the collection, verification, and presentation of information. The studies should be based on reliable and objective information and also the very priorities of Indigenous Peoples. Here, we must point out that the sphere of Indigenous Peoples is being increasingly politicized and the use of this issue in geopolitical confrontation, fragmentation of international law, and a selective interpretation of norms of international law. This undermines the international treaty process with the participation of Indigenous Peoples We urge countries to respect the provisions of Article 30 of Declaration and strengthen the mechanisms of ongoing dialogue with legitimate representatives of institutions of indigenous peoples, including in questions of peace building. We recommend to states and UN institutions to ensure objectivity and a non-politicized character or nature of all processes and contribute to the consistent application of international standards in the area of the rights of indigenous peoples, develop practical cooperation in the interests of building trust and lasting peace. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to. Seems they're not in the room. Yes, I can see your hand. Is Resiguardo Indigena Togoima. Yes, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. I speak on behalf of my Indigenous peoples, NASA of Colombia. We're part of the Regional Council of Indigenous Peoples, COCATRIS, as part of the study and assessment of the rights of Indigenous peoples. in situations of conflict and post-conflict, we say the following, that despite the fact that Colombian state is making progress in the implementation of the peace treaty for Indigenous Peoples in the Cauca Department, the conflict still is ongoing, and our territories continue to be scenarios of warfare, illegal economies, and different forms of violence that affect in a disproportionate manner our communities in line with documented information by the system of information on human rights, serious violations of human rights persist, also violations of IHL, for example, assassinations of indigenous leaders. We recommend to deepen in the study the use and application that relates to the use of children and adolescents in war and forced disappearances and violations that threaten Indigenous Peoples. In this respect, we also recognize the mandate of EMRIP and has to strengthen the support provided to states, as well as the need to consider a future official visit to Colombia, especially the Cauca Department, in order to have firsthand information about their situations. We must have technical recommendations that strengthen individual and collective rights in order to ensure building lasting peace and full participation in the process. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Kisan.

Thank you very much. Chair, and I'd like to thank the Voluntary Fund for making it possible for me to be here today. My name is Barisu Mahamadou, Secretary dealing with women's affairs in the Kisangui Association and member of the West African Indigenous Network. Our organization is working towards the promotion and defense of the rights of communities, focusing especially on the protection of women and children. We work principally in the north of Bena. a region facing the impact of violent extremism and jihadism, and local communities are particularly affected by the situations. They are often the target of armed groups that carry out forced recruitment, especially of young people. In this respect, we recommend to contribute to guaranteeing the right to education of all children affected by this crisis, because access to school is crucial for the protection, development, and building a peaceful future. We are convinced that the strengthening of the role of women and investment in education of children represent the most valuable tools to build more resilient communities and ensuring lasting peace. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Anishinabe Aski Nation.

On behalf of Anishinabe Aski Nation, which encompasses Treaty 9 and parts of Treaty 5 and Treaty 3. We welcome the draft study and commend the expert mechanism for reframing the international understanding of conflict affecting Indigenous peoples. The study's greatest contribution is conceptually recognizing that conflict affecting Indigenous peoples extends beyond armed violence to include structural exclusion and the denial of self-determination. In doing so, It recognizes that lasting peace depends not only on extending violence, but on realizing Indigenous peoples' rights through meaningful participation in decision-making. As the study moves towards finalization, we respectfully offer one observation that we believe could further strengthen the study. The governance failures identified, including exclusion of decision-making, weak treaty implementation, and the marginalization of indigenous institutions should be recognized not only as structural drivers of conflict, but also as an indicator of conflict risk requiring early preventative action. Conflict prevention begins long before violence. It begins by identifying governance failures before they evolve into human rights crises. Recognizing these risks early could enable member states and the UN to act before harm occurs. We therefore encourage the expert mechanism to recognize governance exclusion as an early indicator of conflict risk, reinforce free, prior and informed consent as a governing principle, and encourage member states to institutionalize indigenous participation as a core component of conflict prevention. Ultimately, This study demonstrates that implementing the United Nations Declaration is not only a human rights obligation, it is one of the most effective strategies for preventing conflict and building durable peace. Miigwech. Thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to the Daewon Foundation.

Thank you, Chair. We often hear that youth are the leaders of tomorrow. However, this framing overlooks an important truth. Indigenous youth are already experts on conflict because we inherent and continue to experience the evolving consequences. For Indigenous peoples, the impacts of conflict do not end when formal violence stops. The consequences of dispossession, forced assimilation, and violations of self-determination continue across generations. The draft study rightly recognizes that lasting peace requires the full realization of Indigenous peoples' rights. Yet, Indigenous youth are often included in these conversations as symbols of the future rather than as experts in the present. Indigenous youth represent a significant proportion of Indigenous communities worldwide, yet we remain underrepresented in many of the processes shaping our futures. Our lived experiences are a form of expertise, and we remain on the front lines of these colonial realities. If post-conflict processes are intended to prevent the reoccurrence of harm, Indigenous youth must be recognized not only as participants but as contributors whose lived experiences strengthen peacebuilding. The study's emphasis on meaningful participation through Indigenous peoples' representative institutions is essential, but participation should also recognize lived experience as a form of expertise. We are not only future generations affected by these decisions, we are the rights holders and knowledge holders today. This is particularly important for Indigenous women and girls. Gender-based violence in conflict and post-conflict situations disproportionately impacts Indigenous youth, threatening not only individual safety but also the continuity of our languages, cultures, leadership, and communities. For many Indigenous peoples, peace is not simply the absence of violence. Peace exists when the next generation can continue to live as Indigenous peoples, with our lands, languages, cultures, and right to determine our future.

Exhausted your time. I now give the floor to Maloca Internacional.

Gracias. Los pueblos indigenas de Colombia.

Indigenous peoples of Colombia for decades were principal victims of the armed conflict. Despite the signing of the peace agreement, Many indigenous communities face violence, displacement, assassination of leaders, militarization of their territories, and threats against their autonomy and their forms of government. Also, it's well known that broad sectors of an organized indigenous movement, as well as communities located in different parts of the country, expressed their support to the political project of the historical pact, motivated by agendas related to implementation of peace, defense of territories, collective rights, and social justice. Today, we note with concern the deep discussion at the national level in Colombia related to the transparency of the electoral process. Different citizen sectors have registered irregularities and inconsistencies in electoral registers, question the holding of electoral materials, the intervention and from information intervention from the United States for these reasons Malok internationals publicly announced its decision to join civil disobedience process together with other sectors of Colombian society that believe that it is necessary to fully respect the Constitution popular sovereignty the rights of indigenous peoples and Democratic transparency thank you I.

Thank you uh I think with that speaker the speakers list uh on this agenda item is coming to an end. And before we conclude the session, I would like to give the floor to my fellow experts for their comments. Yes, I see Sherry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by thanking all of those who participated in the MRIP expert seminar in December 2025 here in Geneva. And I'd also like to thank the Secretariat for their invaluable assistance in helping MRIP analyze and prepare this draft study. An extra special thanks to all those who took the time to prepare and share with us their written statements electronically. I want to underline how essential all these submissions are to our work. The expert mechanisms studies draw from international human rights law, state submissions, expert submissions, but also importantly, from the direct testimony and lived experience of Indigenous peoples themselves. So when we consider submissions from Indigenous peoples from all regions, as well as member states, national human rights institutions, expert academics, civil society, we ensure that our analysis reflects all of those realities on the ground across all regions and from a multitude of perspectives. Also, we as EMRIP have taken very careful note of all of the feedback offered from the floor today on the draft. and we will carefully reflect on all of it as we finalize the text of the study. We know Indigenous peoples globally are disproportionately impacted by conflict, and the dynamics of these conflict and post-conflict situations arise from a multitude of historical injustices, dispossession of lands and resources, denial of self-determination, and systemic inequalities. We have heard the room. This study affirms that peace and security depend on Indigenous peoples' ability to exercise their rights, including the rights to self-determination and to control over lands, territories, and resources. Indigenous peoples are not only disproportionately impacted by conflicts, but also should be recognized as key agents in conflict prevention and sustainable peace. And I'd like to focus on the advice number 19 and next to this report and a few highlights. Paragraph two underscores that states should recognize and protect the identities, cultures, and fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights to life, integrity, liberty, and security of person as integral to conflict prevention, reconciliation, and sustainable peace. Among other elements, para 17 highlights that states should recognize that climate change, environmental degradation and energy transition measures can be drivers of conflict that affect Indigenous Peoples and should ensure that such measures are designed and implemented in partnership with them, without causing dispossession, displacement, environmental harm or conflict escalation. States should, where possible, support Indigenous-led governance, environmental governance, knowledge systems, stewardship practices as central to conflict prevention, protection, and resilience. I also want to note that this study arrives at a particular moment of growing global momentum around Indigenous peacebuilding. This past April, on the margins of the 25th session of the Permanent Forum in New York, the second Global Summit on Indigenous Peacebuilding brought together about 300 representatives from 80 countries across seven sociocultural regions. And that gathering affirmed something that this study also documents, that Indigenous peoples are not merely those upon whom conflict is inflicted, but are also architects of peace in their own right, carrying distinct traditions of mediation, negotiation, and diplomacy, grounded in our knowledge and relationships with lands and territories. The call from that summit, echoed in the Permanent Forum's proposal for an International Decade of Indigenous Peacebuilding, also deserves our collective attention. As a final word, I'd like to offer A word of gratitude to Chief Deskaheh for his Thanksgiving remarks at the opening of our gathering. He reminded us that Peacemaker for the Haudenosaunee called upon us as human beings to use good words and to carry a good mind and to avoid harsh words with one another. There's so much conflict in our world at the moment. And while this study has focused on the situation of Indigenous peoples in conflict and post-conflict contexts, Chief Deskaohw's words this morning remind us poignantly that it's every bit as important to consider how peace is reached and what our own responsibilities are, each and every one of us, to conduct ourselves in peaceful ways. Indigenous peoples have long known this. Our traditions of peacemaking are among the oldest forms of law and diplomacy, and I encourage all of us to rely more on them. Miigwech. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Cheryl. We still have some minutes, so if any of the fellow experts would like to make an intervention, Anixa, and also members of the Permanent Forum, you have the opportunity to make an intervention. should you wish so.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to start by thanking you and congratulating all Indigenous Peoples and organizations, research institutions, and States on their contributions providing information to this study. And I would like to thank those who worked with us in expert seminars that took place in Geneva in 2025. I also like to thank the Secretariat for the work carried out to ensure the quality of the study. This is a significant contribution to the progressive development of international standards on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in situations of conflict and post-conflict. One of the main contributions is to broaden the understanding of the notion of conflict beyond a simple armed confrontation, recognizing that for many Indigenous peoples, conflicts have structural roots and historical links to colonization, the taking over of their lands, and negation of the right to free determinations, and exclusion from decision-making processes. This perspective reflects in a much better manner the realities faced by indigenous peoples in different parts of the world. Also, I'd like to especially praise the fact that the study situates the rights to land, territory, and natural resources and prior informed consent and free determination as the necessary prerequisites to prevent conflicts and ensure sustainable peace. Recognizing indigenous peoples as right holders and fundamental actors for peace represents one of the main contributions contained in the document. Also, I believe that study could be strengthened in some aspects. In this respect, I'd like to point out first that the study refers to the criminalization of defense defenders of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and perhaps we could look in greater detail the new forms of conflict that Indigenous Peoples face, especially in contexts where there's no declared armed conflict, but where systematic policies exist of persecution, criminalization, violence and repression against those who defend their territories, natural resources and collective rights. This form of violence today is a contemporary form of conflict and has to be directly recognized. In this respect, I suggest that we incorporate a reference to transnational repression against Indigenous peoples in different regions, where noticing a continued trend of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, confiscation of passports or identity documents, and preventing return to ancestral lands, intimidation outside of countries, as well as reprisals against Indigenous leaders. This is a situation that is very alarming and it is a growing trend, something that we have to look at. And this practice not only affects the rights of those who suffer from this violence, but also undermines institutions that represent Indigenous Peoples and limit the collective right to self-determination. this reality has to be expressly recognized as a contemporary manifestation of conflicts that affect Indigenous Peoples. Also, I believe that study could strengthen the analysis related to the serious violations committed against Indigenous leaders, deprivation of liberty, arbitrary detention, and deaths of leaders, which represent also an extreme form of repression against indigenous peoples, and these situations go beyond impact on individuals and they impact the leadership, traditional governance, and the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to exercise collectively their rights. In this context, it will be important to recall that different UN mechanisms on human rights have established that any death under the jurisdiction of the state requires independent, prompt, impartial, and effective investigations, ensuring accountability and reparation for victims and for their peoples. Finally, I would like to suggest that the section dedicated to transitional justice be even further strengthened, recognizing that reparations should be collective, culturally appropriate, and done with the full participation of Indigenous Peoples respecting justice, their traditional institutions, and their own forms of punishment and sanctions. Also, we believe that this very important study will help deal with contemporary challenges faced by numerous Indigenous Peoples in different parts of the world. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Anesa. I still have a few minutes for one more intervention, either from my fellow experts or the Permanent Forum. I don't see any hand. With that, dear colleagues, I would like to thank you for your contributions and feedback which have really reached the study and the work that have been done. And also the experts who have contributed to this study before, you know, I've mentioned in my opening during the seminar, there were experts who came from all regions and contributed to this study. but also the role that the Secretariat has played in guiding and supporting the studies. I would also like to thank you for your work. And the conversations, the comments, the feedback today, I think, has shown how important this topic is for Indigenous people in conflict or post-conflict situations. but also the way in which you've linked it with some of the emerging issues, the broadening of the definition of conflict that is not only the absence of violence, but also the systematic nature of it, where there is injustice, that this is also a source and a form of violence. So we've taken note of all your comments and contributions, and we could say that, you know, those comments would be integrated and it could enrich the study for its final form. And yes, I would like to say thank you again. So with this word, I think we're bringing this session to an end. And yes, I Definitely, yes. So I think this session has come to an end and now is the time for panelists for the next session.

We are inviting the panellists under item 6 to come to the floor, please.

Good afternoon. On behalf of the Expert Mechanism, I warmly welcome all participants, including Indigenous Peoples' Organizations, Member States, National Human Rights Institutions, UN entities, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations, OHCHR, Indigenous Fellows, grantees, to the last but crucial session of the day. It is my pleasure to chair this important discussion on the Expert Mechanism's Country Engagement Mandate. This year marks 10 years since the Human Rights Council expanded the mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through resolution 33/25, adopted in September 2016. It transformed the Expert Mechanism from primarily an advisory body into one that also provides technical advice and assistance to member states upon request from both the member state and indigenous peoples in support of the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This expanded mandate, EMRIP promotes, protects, and advances the fulfillment of the rights of indigenous peoples by providing practical, important support and expertise. As we mark the 10 years since the expansion of the Expert Mechanism's mandate, I am pleased to recognise nine country engagements the Expert Mechanism has undertaken. I am also very pleased to confirm a forthcoming country engagement with New Zealand, proposed for early 2027. The requests for country engagement have come from both Indigenous Peoples and Member States, reflecting the confidence placed in the Expert Mechanism's technical advice and assistance. Experience has shown that country engagement supported by both the Member State concerned and Indigenous Peoples have been the most effective, fostering constructive dialogue and practical implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Expert Mechanism is pleased to advise the success of specifically two country engagement requests. First, the amendments to the Sami Parliament Act from a 2018 request, and second, the successful repatriation of the request for the Yaqi Masikova from a 2020 request. We encourage all States Indigenous peoples, and the private sectors to engage with the expert mechanism to pursue its country engagement mandate. This year, the expert mechanism undertook two very fruitful country engagements with Canada and Brazil. The engagement with Canada was requested by Jeremy Matson and members of Parliament Leah Gazan and Jenny Kwan. This was conducted through providing a written technical advisory note and guidance to the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Northern Affairs on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in relation to the proposed amendments to the Indian Act. I am pleased to note that the Expert Mechanism's technical advisory note to Canada is now public and available on our website. Its recommendations encourage Kana to align the Indian Act with the UN Declaration, including by addressing the second generation cut-off, remaining sex discrimination, and access to effective remedies and redress. The engagement with Brazil, requested by GTI-PIACI, involved a 10-day mission, including field visits to Indigenous peoples' communities in Roraima State in the Amazon region, followed by meetings in Brasilia with various government representatives. The mission focused on Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. The mission highlighted the importance of strengthening the protection of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact, including through the effective protection of their lands and territories, respect for the principle of no contact, and sustained cooperation between indigenous peoples and state authorities. The mission also included engagement with judicial authorities, recognizing their importance role in ensuring effective protection and remedies for Indigenous Peoples and voluntary isolation and initial contact. Today's panel brings together Indigenous Peoples and States to reflect on engagement and implementation of the Expert Mechanism's technical advice following the missions to Canada and to Brazil. We will begin with the country engagement mission to Canada first. And foremost, I'd like to welcome Jeremy Metson, Jeremy Metson to the Indigenous Questor from the Squamish Nation. Mr. Metson, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you. Good day, you great people. Honourable chair, honourable expert members, honourable excellencies, Ambassador MacDougall, Honourable Indigenous colleagues and esteemed secretariat staff, my name is Jeremy Matson. I'm a Squamish or Squamish Nation member. The Squamish Nation is in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I also have direct ancestral connections to the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other Coast Salish communities in British Columbia, Canada. I'm a registered person under Section 6 of the Indian Act of Canada. For 100 years, Canada has applied assimilation policies against every generation of my family. and this continues into the present day. As the originating country engagement requester of Canada, I convey my highest gratitude to the honourable MRIP experts and the two supporting requesters, members of Parliament Leah Gazan and Jenny Kwan, who wrote MRIP in 2026, as well as the MRIP Secretariat and to Canada. for receiving this country engagement request, which resulted in the May 4th, 2026 technical advisory note to Canada. The purpose of the advice is to provide guidance and implementation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in particular, articles 3, 8, 9, 22, 33, 40, and 44 in relation to amendments to the Indian Act and, in this instance, Bill S-2, An Act to Amend the Indian Act New Registration Entitlements. My original request for engagement sought MRIP's expertise on ongoing violations of the right to be free of forced assimilation affirmed in the UN Declaration and compensation remedies, redress, and other reparations for these violations. The technical advice from EMREP demonstrates clearly the depth of my concerns and lays out over 40 years of calls from the UN treaty bodies, reviews, individual communications, and inquiries, the UPR, UN special procedures, and other domestic regional bodies and inquiries demonstrating the rights violations embedded in the Indian Act status registration provisions. In addition to requesting this country engagement, I am the successful author in communication number 682014, Matson v. Canada, decided by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, in 2022. As stated in the advice from CEDAW's communication, the committee found that Canada had violated its obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1, including the relation to access to justice and sex-based discrimination arising from Indian Act status registration provisions. In its views, the Committee also referred to the Declaration as a relevant interpretive framework, including Article 8, and concluded that, "The unequal criteria by which men and women are permitted, according to the state party, to transmit their Indigenous identity to their descendants were inconsistent with the standards affirmed in the Declaration, including the prohibition of forced assimilation and destruction of Indigenous cultures." The advice outlines 21 instances of UN commentary on the issue of sex and race discrimination in the Indian Act over nearly 50 years. I am grateful to MRIP for this exhaustive research and compendium. I am also grateful for MRIP and Canada's timely movements on this request for engagement, which is occurring as the Parliament of Canada continues its study of Bill S-2, its latest attempt to remove some of the discrimination from the Indian Act. I am pleased to update MRIP that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, known as INON, reacted to my request to have MRIP's May 4, 2026 technical note posted on the INON website. It was translated and it was provided to each INON committee member for INON's study of Bill S-2, keeping with paragraph 2 of the advice, which highlights that its guidance is specific to every member of the INON committee. and every member of the House of Commons of Canada, and not only the bureaucratic departments that the Executive of Canada are heads of, such as Indigenous Services Canada. The House of Commons rose for summer break and will return to sitting on September 21, 2026, to December 11, 2026. On June 18, 2026, Indigenous Services Canada, known as ISC, provided a written response to my communication about the technical note. I have provided this letter to the expert members in the hope of continuing this constructive engagement with Canada. In the letter, ISC stated that, "MRIP does not specifically recommend the remedy as proposed by the Senate." Regrettably, this statement, in my view, misreads MRIP's advice. I would respectfully urge ISC and the Government of Canada to take up the guidance thoughtfully provided by the MRIP and note the direct connection to the Senate amendments to Bill S-2, noted at paragraph 7, 16 and 24B of the advice. I will quote paragraph 16, that, "Canada has a unique opportunity to amend the Indian Act at this juncture in order to address the core of both the persistent sex and racist discrimination and the policy of forced assimilation inherent in the second-generation cut-off provision of the Indian Act." The rights affirmed in the UN Declaration "constitute the minimum standards for survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world," Article 43. As Canada seeks to implement the declaration domestically, the advice provides constructive guidance to Canada on how to address noncompliance with article 8 of the declaration, alongside guidance of articles 3, 9, 22, 33, 40, and 44. This in keeping with CEDAW's findings in communication 682014 at paragraph 18.4. I am open and I hope the other stakeholders, including the members of the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada, are as well, to the generous offer of bilateral meetings from MRIP, this concrete way for Canada to ensure the meaningful implementation of the declaration. I respectfully to ask your Excellency, Ambassador MacDougall of Canada, here today to advise the Honourable Prime Minister Mark Carney to pass the Senate of Canada's amendments to Bill S-2 in alignment with EMRIT's May 4, 2026 technical advisory note and its recommendations. I call on the Prime Minister Mark Carney to follow an example of the Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who apologized on behalf of Canada on the floor of the House of Commons to the survivors of the residential schools in the spirit of reconciliation. and that Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government apologize on behalf of Canada to our First Nations women, our First Nations children, our descendants, and others who have suffered intergenerational effects of assimilation under the Indian Act. All the House of Commons opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois, Conservative, Green Party, the NDP Party, support the Senate of Canada's amendments to Bill S-2. There should be no impediment to the Government of Canada to follow the guidance of MRIP. I want to reiterate my gratitude to all involved in this constructive engagement. I thank you. Thank you.

For your statement, Mr. Madsen. It's now my pleasure to give the floor to Ambassador Peter MacDougall, Ambassador Extraordinary, Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations Office in Geneva. His Excellency, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, distinguished members of the Expert Mechanism, Mr. Jeremy Madsen, Indigenous representatives and colleagues, Canada welcomes this opportunity to engage under item 6 on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. country engagement mandate. Canada thanks the expert mechanism for its timely technical advice on Bill S-2, known as an Act to amend the Indian Act, while the bill is still before Parliament. The advice was provided without a country visit, demonstrating the flexibility and practical value of the country engagement mandate, including where domestic legislative processes are ongoing. Canada appreciates this constructive engagement and the role that the expert mechanism can play in supporting implementations of UNDRIP in domestic law and policy. Canada also acknowledges the requesters and the First Nations individuals, families, and communities who have continued to raise these issues through domestic courts, parliamentary processes, and international human rights mechanisms. These issues are personal and immediate for many. They concern identity, family history, community connection, band affiliation, and the ability to transmit recognition of entitlement to registration under the Indian Act to children and future generations. I will begin by identifying areas where Canada and the expert mechanism share common ground. Canada recognizes that gender-based inequities under the registration provisions of the Indian Act have deeply affected Indigenous individuals and families, with particular impacts on First Nations women and their descendants. The expert mechanism's advice situates Bill C-2 within articles 3, 8, 9, 22, 33, 40, and 44 of the declaration and draws together concerns raised over many years by treaty bodies, special procedures mandate holders, domestic courts, First Nations representatives, advocates, and affected individuals. The advisory note is particularly focused on two issues as set out in paragraph 5. First, the second generation cut-off. This is the 1985 cut-off and the two-parent rule. And second, access to compensation, redress, or remedies where legal provisions restrict or prevent such access. These concerns are significant because the effect whether entitlement or registration can be transmitted to children, grandchildren, and future generations and because they raise questions about how legal recognition, remedies, and implementation operate in practice. In paragraphs 14 to 16, the expert mechanism explains its concern that the second-generation cut-off, together with the 1985 cut-off and two-parent rule, raises serious concerns under Article 8 of the Declaration. Canada takes this analysis seriously and understands why the mechanism links these provisions to identity, legal recognition, cultural continuity and intergenerational transmission. The advice also emphasizes that the effects of Indian Act registration provisions have not been gender neutral and have been experienced differently by First Nations women and their descendants over history. Canada will continue to take these impacts into account as it considers the expert mechanisms advice. This work must also be understood in the context of sustained advocacy and litigation by First Nations individuals, descendants, and families. Superior and appellate court decisions, including MacIver, Descheneaux, Gelle, and Nicolas, have played an important role in identifying discriminatory effects and requiring or prompting legislative responses. Bill S-2 is one further step in a longer process of addressing inequities that have been raised by affected individuals, courts, parliamentary processes, and international human rights mechanisms. I now turn to Bill S-2 and the domestic legislative response. Bill S-2 remains before Parliament and is subject to the parliamentary process. As introduced, the bill sought to address specific inequities in Indian Act registration and band membership provisions related to enfranchisement, deregistration, natal band affiliation, and outdated and offensive language for dependent adults. It is a meaningful but limited legislative response. It does not, by itself, resolve every remaining issue in the Indian Act. For those with a family history affected by enfranchisement, Bill S-2, as introduced, would allow them to register under the Indian Act and take a step towards addressing long-standing inequities. If adopted, these provisions are expected to allow approximately 3,500 people to register. To date, more than 2,300 applications have already been received. This aspect of the bill responds to the continuing effects of a historical enfranchisement that affected recognition under the Indian Act and the transmission of recognition within families including issues raised in the Nicholas litigation. With respect to deregistration, the bill would provide a mechanism for individuals to remove themselves from the Indian register if they choose. Deregistration should be a personal decision and an individual right. This provision is narrower than the registration entitlement reforms, but it is relevant to autonomy, identity, and choice within a statutory registration framework. With respect to natal band affiliation, Bill S-2, as introduced, would allow First Nations women who lost membership in their band of origin because of marriage to regain that affiliation on departmental band lists and would extend that entitlement to direct descendants. This responds to a specific feature of the Indian Act that severed women from their communities and affected the ability of women and descendants to maintain legally recognized connection to communities of origin. The bill would also replace outdated language for dependent adults. This amendment is targeted but meaningful from a dignity and equality perspective and reflects the importance of ensuring that federal legislation does not reproduce stigmatizing or outdated terminology. The expert mechanism also focuses on the second generation cut-off. Bill S-2 was amended by the Senate to address the second generation cut-off through a single parent rule. under which entitlement to registration could pass to future generations where at least one parent is entitled to registration. The Senate amendments would also remove the no liability clauses initially included in the bill. These amendments are directly relevant to the core concerns identified in paragraph 5 of the advisory note. At the same time, Canada recognizes that further work remains. Bill S-2 would not resolve every remaining issue in the Act. nor would it resolve broader and longstanding questions regarding First Nations jurisdiction over citizenship, registration, and membership. Identity and belonging should not be defined solely by federal legislation. Further work is required and ongoing in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, including on section 10 voting thresholds and broader reform of registration and membership frameworks. The issues before the expert mechanism sit at the intersection of individual rights and collective dimensions of identity, belonging, and self-determination. A credible response must therefore consider both individuals who may become entitled to registration and First Nation communities that may experience demographic, cultural, administrative, and program impacts as those entitlements are implemented. I now turn to redress, remedies, and implementation. As raised in paragraphs 20 to 22, redress is linked not only to individual harm but also to the costs faced by communities when legal recognition is restored, including housing, services, community development, and land-related pressures. Canada understands that implementation and redress cannot be reviewed separately. Legal recognition alone may not fully address the consequences of past and continuing inequities. We take note of MRAC recommendation 24G, which addresses access to redress, under Articles 8, 2D, and 40 of the Declaration. Canada also notes Bill S-2, as amended by the Senate, removes the no liability clauses initially included in the bill. Questions related to remedies, compensation, reparations, litigation, and specific remedy mechanisms are complex and require careful consideration in light of domestic legal frameworks, the parliamentary process, and engagement with First Nations. Canada will continue to consider these issues carefully. Legislative reform must be capable of recognizing rights in practice, not only in law. Affected individuals must be able to understand their potential entitlements, access registration processes, navigate review mechanisms where appropriate, and exercise new entitlements in a timely and meaningful way. First Nations communities must also be supported in addressing the practical implications of entitlement, including administration, registration capacity, population growth, programs and services, land-related pressures, and sustainable supports. For this reason, the collaborative process on the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds remains central. Continued consultation and cooperation with First Nations is not only procedural, but it is also part of the substance of the response. Canada will continue to engage with First Nations perspectives carefully, recognizing the importance of self-determination and the need for solutions that are legally sound, practically implementable, and informed by First Nations priorities. Canada values the expert mechanisms country engagement mandate as a space for constructive, rights-based dialogue among states, Indigenous peoples, and independent experts. The process in relation to Bill S-2 has demonstrated that technical advice can contribute meaningfully to domestic legislative deliberation, particularly where the timing of parliamentary consideration requires a flexible approach. In closing, Canada reiterates its appreciation to the mechanism for its advice and continued engagement. Canada also thanks the First Nations individuals, Mr. Matson in particular, families, communities, and representatives whose persistence and advocacy have shaped this work over many, many years. We remain committed to working in consultation and cooperation with First Nations to address remaining inequities in the Indian Act and to advance implementation of UNDRIP in a manner grounded in respect, rights recognition, and self-determination. Thank you.

I thank Ambassador McDougall for your statement. I would now like to turn to the Country Engagement Mission in Brazil. We will begin with GTI-PIACI, the Indigenous requesters of the mission. I am pleased to invite the first representative from GTI PIACI, Marcieli Ayap Tupari. You have five minutes.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Marcieli Ayap Tupari. I come from the Brazilian Amazon basin, a region which finds itself at the middle of a territorial conflict, above all thanks to illegal logging and those mining gold as well as agribusiness. I'm here as an expert representing indigenous women and Brazilian Amazon indigenous movements. We've been working for more than 37 years representing the indigenous peoples of nine Brazilian states. We protect more than 110 million hectares of indigenous land, but we suffer daily threat We have established the Indigenous Peoples Park, which is a historic area in memory of an unknown people known globally as the Jabiraka Indian. They were victims of genocide and they existed without contact with Western society, I want to emphasize the importance of these mechanisms visiting indigenous territories. It allows us to better understand what is simplified in the media, the great distances, the constant interference by invaders in the daily work of indigenous communities in vigilance and protection of their territories. Deforestation, mining, illegal appropriation of indigenous lands and other illegal activities undermine our territories on a daily basis. And it's important to say this very clearly. Threats against isolated indigenous peoples are happening as I speak. We also confront a lot of backsliding in Brazilian legislation. Law 14792 and IPEC 48 have threatened indigenous lands and consolidated a new legal framework which have legitimized massacres and other historic violations suffered by indigenous peoples. Furthermore, they weaken the protection of our lands and they allow economic activities which do not respect our rights. We also want to draw attention to the legal failings in legal protection of isolated indigenous peoples in Brazil. There is still not a specific law guaranteeing this policy in a permanent fashion to protect them. As I speak to you, this protection principally depends on regulatory, administrative standards, which can be changed pursuant to changes in government by the civil servants. It's important to formalize this to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples. Finally, I want to highlight the role of indigenous women. We stand on the front line of defending our territories, the forest, and our ancestral knowledges. In the Amazon, we have the Indigenous Women's Brazilian Amazon Union. We defend, joining together with other indigenous women, defend the whole space inhabited by indigenous peoples. Strengthening us is also strengthening isolated indigenous peoples who have only come into recent contact with global society. We must care for these indigenous women who care for us on a daily basis. We ask this mechanism to continue to supervise the context in Brazil. and ensure bolstered legal guarantees to protect these people, to allow them to defend their lands and increase the role of Indigenous peoples' organizations and women's Indigenous organizations as agents of change. Thank you very much in Portuguese and thank you in Spanish.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Lucas Mancini, another representative from GI TI PIACI. You have five minutes.

Madam Chair, my name is Lucas. I come from a territory on the border between Brazil and Peru. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you the situation of the Aymara territory and indigenous peoples living in relevant isolation. And I think the mission could meet directly with our people. And this dialogue contributes to broadening understanding of the challenges that we face and the need to strengthen the protection of our peoples, continue facing serious threats like invasions, violence, and risk of extermination. It is crucial for the Brazilian state to respect the rights, the autonomy and the ways of life of our peoples, guaranteeing the integrity of their territories and ensuring that monitoring work continues, the work organized by indigenous communities. I would like to share with you some thoughts that we believe are relevant for future country engagement missions of EMRIT. Now, indigenous peoples living in isolation do not know national borders, their territories and their constant movement crosses borders between countries and this is why we recommend continuing dialogue between countries that are present and promote mechanisms of regional cooperation. It is also important for this mechanism to recognize and strengthen the networks and indigenous organizations that provide information, carry out territorial follow-up, and develop their own systems of early warning. The protection and development of country engagement missions depends on the effective participation of indigenous peoples at all stages of development of public policies and international processes. Finally, on the basis of the experience of the mission in Brazil, we believe that future missions can further increase their presence in indigenous territories. It will be very useful to lengthen the presence in different villages and promote spaces for dialogue in line with the rhythms and forms that belong to each indigenous peoples group. We also know that important institutional protocols exist, including related to security, but we believe that within these possibilities, greater participation of communities contributes to generating trust and will make it possible for Indigenous Peoples to express their concerns and priorities. We believe that recommendations of EMRIP can better reflect the reality that exists on the ground. We recognize our recognition of the commitment of EMRIP to this issue, and we do hope that the mission represents the beginning of continued cooperation to strengthen the protection of Indigenous peoples in all of the Amazon. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Mancinelli for his statement. Now I give the floor to Andre Simas Magalhaes, the Minister-Counselor and Human Rights Coordinator, Permanent Mission of Brazil. Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me thank the interventions and engagement of my colleagues, the representatives of the Brazilian Indigenous peoples that we just heard. Members of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, representatives of the Indigenous Peoples and of the International Working Group of Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Brazilian government, I would like to thank EMRIP for its willingness to conduct an engagement mission to Brazil and contribute to advancing the Indigenous agenda in the country. I also thank GTI PIACI, which proposed the mission and played a decisive role in making it possible, particularly through its support for Indigenous Peoples and their representatives. I would also like to thank the Indigenous Peoples who participated in the meetings with MRIP, invited the Brazilian government to take part and generously welcomed all participants to their territories. Before moving on to Brazil's initial impressions of the engagement mission, I would like to recall that Brazil maintains a standing invitation to the United Nations special procedures. This reflects Brazil's commitment to human rights and its appreciation for multilateralism. Ladies and gentlemen, Brazil believes that technical advice can contribute to improving public policies. It was in this spirit that we accepted and remain grateful for the United Nations offer to conduct an engagement mission comprising a visit to the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau indigenous territory in the state of Rondonia and meetings with public agencies and organized civil society in Brasilia. From the outset of the discussions with EMRIP and throughout the preparations of the mission, in which GT-EPIACI participated, Brazil thought to ensure that the UN experts had full freedom to carry out their fieldwork. It is important to emphasize that the Brazilian government took part in the activities in Rondonia alongside the Indigenous Peoples only at their invitation. The schedule of meetings in the capital, Brasilia, was organized so that each public agency consulted would have its own space to present its positions without interference from third parties. This format facilitated an open, spontaneous, and in-depth exchange, enabling substantive discussions and contributing to the quality of the information gathered by the mechanism. The Brazilian government is pleased to learn directly from the MRIP team that the visit to the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau indigenous territory was successful and proceeded without incident. We have also been informed that the same was true during the mechanism visit to Brasilia. Ladies and gentlemen, the successful completion of such a complex and enriching agenda was only possible thanks to the contributions of the various stakeholders who worked to ensure the mission's full implementation. In addition to the nine agencies interviewed by AMREP in Brasilia, I'd like to acknowledge the work of the coordination team of the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau Ethno-Environmental Protection Front and the Ji-Parana Special Indigenous Health District. Both agencies handle the health clearance procedures required for entry into the indigenous territory, helping to protect the communities visited from exposure to communicable diseases. I also acknowledge the invaluable support of the Federal Police, the National Public Security Force, and the Military Police of the State of Rondonia, which ensured the safety of UN personnel during their visit to Sao Paulo, Rondonia, and Brasilia. I will now turn to the reflections prompted by the engagement process, including during the preparations for the visit. The mission highlighted the process underway in Brazil to revitalize and institutionally strengthen its Indigenous policy. I am referring to the expansion of indigenous participation in state decision-making bodies, the resumption of policies on territorial demarcation and protection, the strengthening of consultation and participation mechanisms, the increased indigenous presence in multilateral environmental and climate agendas, and the promotion of policies focused on social bioeconomics and indigenous territorial and environmental management. The creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples and the strengthening of the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples, combined with the political decision to appoint indigenous leaders to strategic decision-making positions, represent substantive responses to international recommendations regarding self-determination, effective participation, and the transformation of the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples. I observe a convergency between the measures implemented in recent years and the recommendations previously addressed to Brazil by international human rights mechanisms particularly those contained in the 2009 and 2016 reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This convergence demonstrates the significance of the institutional changes promoted within the framework of federal indigenous policy, as well as the legitimacy of the process of strengthening mechanisms aimed at indigenous participation territorial protection, and the promotion of rights. EMRIP's engagement mission contributed to the thorough assessment and reflection on the current state of affairs regarding the protection and promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples in Brazil, with special attention to isolated and recently contacted peoples. and rip meetings with public agencies and civil society addressed topics such as the management and protection of indigenous territories, demarcation processes and actions to remove intruders, in adherence to the principles of non-contact, precaution and self-determination. In addition to reports on the difficulties in defending and promoting the right of indigenous peoples, The meetings also provided an opportunity for discussions on the need to improve the legal framework and public policies in Brazil. Ladies and gentlemen, Brazilian legislation is widely recognized as one of the most advanced in terms of promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples. However, there is always room to improve existing legal frameworks. This was a topic discussed extensively and openly during the meetings. One example is the national policy on territorial and environmental management of Indigenous lands, a fundamental framework for the protection of territories and natural resources, as well as for Indigenous governance and participation. The implementation of free, prior and informed consultation as well as policies aimed at isolated and recently contacted peoples, are also issues receiving growing attention from Brazilian authorities, as they are essential for the promotion and defense of the rights of indigenous peoples. In conclusion, Brazil recognizes that despite the many advances made in recent years, challenges, which are also numerous, persist. We are open to new possibilities and we will welcome MRIP's contribution with enthusiasm and a sincere desire to improve our public policies in support of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for his statement. We will now turn to the list of speakers. I'd like to give the floor to Australia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Australia welcomed the Expert Mechanism's 2023 country visit to Australia, the subsequent advisory note, and the opportunity to provide updates at the 17th and 18th sessions of MRIP. Today I provide a further update, including recent measures. Madam Chair, in its 2026-2027 State Budget, The Western Australian government committed more than $10 million to accelerate progress under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The Western Australian Department of Communities is continuing its cultural reform agenda to strengthen workforce capability and ensure systems, policies and practices are more culturally responsive. It is also increasing Aboriginal workforce participation, career development, and organisational support through its Aboriginal Workforce Strategy. In April 2026, the Department of Justice released a cultural security framework for youth detention, co-designed with young people in detention, Aboriginal leaders, community members and staff, to improve outcomes for Aboriginal young people, family and communities. The Western Australian government has also increased investment in Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to deliver culturally appropriate child and family services, including $44.9 million to expand Aboriginal representative organisations statewide and continue Aboriginal family-led decision-making services in two sites. In June 2026, the Department of Communities released the Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations Commissioning Framework to maximise their role in delivering services to Aboriginal children, families and communities. Madam Chair, nationally, Australia remains committed to advancing the rights, interests and wellbeing of First Nations people, including through Safe and Supported, the national framework for protecting Australia's children 2021 to 2031. We recognise that more work is required, Australia remains committed to fair scrutiny of our human rights record, constructive engagement with international partners, and practical action to improve outcomes with and for First Nations peoples. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank Australia for this statement and pleased to hear of the update. I now give the floor to the Sami Parliament in Finland. Thomas, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, in 2018, EMRIP carried out a country engagement mission to Finland. It advised and recommendation contributed to addressing longstanding human rights concerns related to Sami Parliament Act, including the right to self and Sami people to self-identification and self-determination. On 19th June 2025, the Parliament of Finland adopted the historic amendment to the Sami Parliament Act that came in force on the 1st of August 2025. This reform marked the result of more than three decades of work by Sami representatives and communities across generations. The amendment revised the criteria for voting rights and eligibility in Sami Parliament elections, bringing them closer to international human rights standards and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Importantly, the revised Act also strengthens the legal framework for cooperation between state authorities and Sami Parliament. The new section 9 on cooperation and negotiation is one of the most important advances in the Act. It moves beyond ordinary consultations and requires earlier, more genuine and more structured engagement with the Sami Parliament in matters that may affect the Sami people. We wish to thank EMRIP for its consistent and principled support. The historical first country engagement process of EMRIP has shown that expert advice and follow-up process, when followed by genuine dialogue and political will, can make a real difference. In our case, EMRIP expertise on UNDRIP has been undeniable, even on a national in Finland. We therefore encourage both states and indigenous peoples to make full use of its mandate. It can truly help build trust, support implementation, and contribute to practical solutions on national level, especially on the national level. Yes, thank you.

I thank Thomas for his statement. I now give the floor to the Indian Treaty Council.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to express our continued appreciation for the important role played by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in supporting the repatriation of the sacred Yaqui masacova, or the ceremonial deer head, following more than 20 years of advocacy by the Yaqui people and their supporters. Through the country engagement process, one of EMIP's unique and very important mandates, IITC submitted the request to EMRIP, worked alongside Yaqui leaders from Mexico and the United States, as well as Sweden's Museum of Ethnography to achieve this historic and long-awaited outcome. This successful process demonstrated the value of constructive dialogue grounded in the rights affirmed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While we celebrate this achievement, we remain concerned that the principles articulated in MREPs technical advisory note of 16 June 2020 have yet to receive broader recognition or consistent application in other international reparations mechanisms. IITC therefore reiterates its call for the development of an effective international mechanism to support the repatriation of Indigenous peoples' sacred objects, ceremonial items, human remains, cultural heritage, consistent with Articles 11 and 12 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as commitments contained in the World Conference. We welcome the recent recommendations by the UN Permanent Forum calling for further progress in the area. IITC respectfully encourages UNESCO, EMREP and other relevant United Nations bodies to work together with Indigenous Peoples to advance this long overdue international mechanism. Thank you.

I thank Roberto for his statement. I now give the floor to Finland.

Chair, Finland would like to thank for this important discussion. We continue to be very appreciative for EMRIP involvement in the process of reforming the Sami Parliament Act in Finland. In addition to cooperation with the government, EMRIP's expertise was also recognized by the Finnish Parliament. Finland would like to encourage all Member States to use the expertise of EMRIP and other UN, indigenous and human rights mechanisms, also nationally. Our experience of this cooperation is only positive. In this context, Finland would also like to mention another topical development in our country. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning the Sami people handed out its final report to the government of Finland on 4th of December, 2025. The many ways historical report has gathered the Sami people's experiences in Finland over the past decades. It addresses past wrongdoings and makes the Sami's rights as an indigenous people, their culture and way of life visible to all people living in Finland. The report also contains over 60 recommendations that the government, in cooperation with the Sami and the Finnish Parliament, are currently studying. This work will continue to outline how the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations could be taken into account in decision-making and what can be done to promote their implementation. Both the government and Parliament of Finland are strongly committed to thoroughly assessing the recommendations put forth in the report and continuing to promote reconciliation over the long term. Thank you.

I thank Finland for your statement. I now give the floor to Mr. Lino Joao de Oliveira Neves from the Conselho Indigenista Missionario.

Madam.

Chair, distinguished experts, on behalf of the Missionary Indigenous Council, SIMI, and the International Working Group on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples in Isolation would like to express our satisfaction with the recent visit to Brazil. At the same time, we'd like to express our trust in the report and the recommendations that EMRIT will be making. tomorrow, Tuesday, as part of this session, we'll be organizing a parallel event, protection of indigenous peoples in isolation and first contact, lessons from dialogue of MRIP with Brazil and regional priorities for actions. With this parallel event, we'll be strengthening our understanding of survival of our peoples, and effective protection of the territories, exercise of self-determination, and respect for the decision to remain isolated. Nevertheless, it's important not to forget that the threats that continue to threaten the lives and our territories relate to the lack of effectiveness and limitations of the policy for protection of Indigenous peoples in Brazil. So, we'd like to draw the attention to the following: the urgent and immediate need to officially recognize the registers related to peoples in isolation, taking into account the vast majority of these references that are not recognized by national authorities. that continue to deny the existence of people in isolation, the urgent and immediate need of international agreements for the protection of mobile peoples that during their cross-border movements do not receive protection from any countries, to recognize indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and establish international agreements is something that is really urgent and has to be done right now because we can no longer have any delays in this work of people in isolation that are directly threatened. Once again, I'd like to reaffirm our trust in the report and the recommendations that will be made by MRIP.

Thank you. Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the National iwis Forum.

Kim Hamilton for iwi chairs and the Aotearoa Independent Monitoring Mechanism. We commend our 26th monitoring report to MRIP as one way to raise awareness and build support for indigenous rights and solidarity. The positive reflections from both the governments and indigenous peoples from Canada and Brazil affirm our experience from the Aotearoa country engagement in 2019. The country engagement mandate is one of the MRIP's most effective tools for breathing life and intentions of the declaration into action. New Zealand has historically demonstrated leadership in engaging with international human rights mechanisms. However, over the last three years, we have experienced significant regressive legislative and policy changes impacting our treaty and indigenous rights, our constitutional arrangements, and movements as a nation towards social justice. Our 26 AIM report documents these developments, highlights Maori leadership, and our own iwi-led successes, and offers practical recommendations to advance implementing the declaration. Country engagement brings indigenous peoples, states, and independent experts together to identify solutions, share good practice, and strengthen UNDRIP implementation. It is not an investigation, it is not a compliance exercise, or an assignment of blame. It is partnership for progress. We encourage the MRIP to strengthen follow-up processes after country visits so that Indigenous Peoples and States can jointly report on progress and continue implementing recommendations together. Implementation requires dedicated attention, relationships, learning, shared and mutual accountability. We look forward to working constructively with the MRO and the Crown early in 2027 to advance the declaration and strengthen peaceful, enduring partnerships founded on Te Tiriti.

Mauri Ora. Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Wanamala.

Thank you very much, Chair. Guatemala recognizes that the internal domestic conflict has had profound ramifications for our society. More than three decades has led to the loss of thousands of lives, forced displacement, fragmentation of the social fabric, and serious ramifications for the indigenous people who suffered disproportionately the effects of the conflict. The scourge of this period continued to be evident in our communities and reminds us of the importance of conserving historic memory and guaranteeing that these events should never be repeated. Signing the peace agreements signalled the beginning of a new chapter for Guatemala based on the search for reconciliation, democracy and the respect for human rights. particularly the agreement on indigenous identity and rights. We recognize that there are still many remaining challenges. Nonetheless, we continue to construct a roadmap using this basis for a more inclusive society based on the recognition of cultural diversity, participation of peoples, and the elimination of all forms of racism and racial discrimination. Our country recognizes that peacebuilding requires institutions capable of addressing the structural causes of exclusion, guaranteeing effective inclusion for all peoples in public life. Guatemala reiterates its will to continue to foster and implement the peace agreements, strengthening guarantees of non-repetition. and promoting a society based on safeguarding inclusion and the respect for individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples. We are aware that peace cannot only be built by silencing weapons. It is built when victims find truth, justice, and reparation that is effective. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the IFPRW Trust, Tama Tatoki.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I wish to highlight the growing need for Indigenous participation in climate-related infrastructure and encourage the expert mechanism to examine the contribution Indigenous knowledge systems can make to these projects. I also encourage the expert mechanism to use its country engagement mandate to facilitate dialogue with states on the benefits of Indigenous participation in achieving improved climate outcomes. As climate action becomes a priority for both the private and public sector, investment in renewable energy infrastructure, battery energy storage systems, and other resilience projects continues to grow. These initiatives seek to reduce environmental impacts while strengthening community energy security. Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision making affecting their lands, territories and resources, and to maintain and strengthen their distinctive relationship with those environments. The effective implementation of these rights creates opportunities for indigenous knowledge to strengthen environmental stewardship, community participation, local employment, and the long-term sustainability of the infrastructure. Across many Pacific communities, indigenous perspectives emphasize that climate-related infrastructure should benefit not only people, but also the wider environment, including, for example, the health and well-being of marine ecosystems. Given the close connection between these rights and climate-related infrastructure, together with disproportionate impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples, there is a timely opportunity to better understand the contribution Indigenous knowledge systems can make. I encourage the Expert Mechanism to strengthen engagement with Pacific states, including New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati as leaders. I also encourage the Expert Mechanism to undertake a thematic study examining the measurable contribution, indigenous participation in climate-related infrastructure, drawing on examples from the Pacific and complementing work under the UNFCCC platform. This would provide practical guidance to states on delivering climate-related infrastructure while supporting more effective, sustainable and inclusive climate outcomes. Thank you.

I thank Tamata for your statement. I now give the floor to the Asia Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Pratima Gurung, an Indigenous woman with disabilities, speaking on behalf of Asia Indigenous Peoples Caucus. We welcome the work that the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples have undertaken under its country engagement mandate, and we listened very carefully to the updates and advice provided under the recently completed missions in Canada and Brazil. We believe that the country engagement mandate is very important and innovative, and additional to the overall mandate of the EMRIP, especially for the constructive problem solving of the specific issues faced by diverse Indigenous Peoples. While there has been a few visits on the Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Asian countries, we can draw on those experiences to observe that the country visited, conducted by the Special Rapporteur and the country engagement mandate of the EMRIP are distinct and complementary, with the former looking at the overall country situation and later addressing the very specific issues in a targeted way. As Indigenous Peoples, we are taking painstaking efforts to respond to the request for the information of the specific annual themes of both the MRIP and the Permanent Forum. We do this through the coordination of our regional platform, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, including our annual regional preparatory meeting to prepare for the and other human rights processes. This year, we have identified contemporary and persistent human rights issues related to conflict and post-conflict situation in many Asian states, conservation and energy transition. Many can be addressed to the problem-solving approach of our country engagement. The AMBRIF has visited eight countries so far, covering the Arctic, North America, Central and South America, and the Pacific sociocultural regions. Unfortunately, there has no any country engagement yet in Asia. That is why we urge the AMREP to collaborate with the Asian regions to identify the country so that it can engage within Asia. We would also like to welcome the appointment of Mr. Ghan Simre, the former Asia Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and we look forward to working with him and the rest of the AMREP members and we can also have the first country engagement in Asia. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to ACSILS, Ms. Eriko Uehara.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I am a Ryukyuan from Ryukyu, Okinawa. Many of the challenges in Ryukyu today are the result of the disproportionately high number of U.S. military bases our islands are still forced to house. The egregious contamination of the groundwater supply by PFAS makes the water unsafe to drink or grow food. For a time, A subsidy from the national government was being provided to buy carbon to help remediate the water. However, the defense ministry has implied that the subsidy will not be renewed, calling the subsidy renewal difficult. The government of Japan forces 70% of U.S. forces onto Okinawa Prefecture and yet refuses to pay for the consequences of those bases. U.S. military on civilian crime is at a 20-year high, and yet Japan has not introduced any new provisions into Status of Forces Agreement to protect Ryukyans. The government of Japan must respect the results of the 2019 referendum and stop the construction of the Futenma replacement facility and must renew the carbon remediation subsidy. We ask that the Permanent Mission of Japan publicly respond to the early warning urgent action letter that was dispatched by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2025 about the construction of the new base in unceded Ryukyuan waters. Finally, the government of Japan must cease to call us the local community or residents of Okinawa Prefecture, neither of which reflect our ancestral identities or ties to the ancient, sacred islands and waters of Ryukyu. Ryukyuans have been in the archipelago since the beginning of time, and we will be of our islands until the end of time.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to WIN Sports International.

Respectful greetings to all. We thank MRIP for their attention to discrimination and forced assimilation of Indigenous women, children, and men in Canada. The Senate of Canada studied Bill S-2, making amendments in line with UN calls to Canada to end sex-based discrimination against Indigenous women, children, and men found in the Indian Act. These amendments will correct outstanding, ongoing discrimination and eliminate the second-generation cut-off, a legislated genocide and extinction of treaty peoples, tribes, and nations. There is no need for further delay. Canada has a duty to consult on laws and policies impacting Indigenous rights. This duty, advanced in Declaration Article 19, has been weaponized by Canada, ignored when it wishes to pass legislation swiftly, like the Building Canada Act, which overrides Indigenous rights but is considered essential and is used as an obstacle to implementing rights when the government wishes to stall. Samson Cree Nation has over 2,700 nation members, many of them children who are directly impacted and are waiting for rightful recognition and the full implementation and enforcement of their constitutionally protected treaty rights. Canada must recognize and correct the discrimination identified in the petition of Jeremy Matson and must bring an end to the illegal extinction plan and program of forced assimilation by removing the second generation cut-off. Canada must be accountable to the expert mechanism, to the CEDAW Committee, the Human Rights Committee, and Indigenous and treaty peoples, and immediately pass Bill S-2 as amended. Pursuant to articles 3 and 37, we call for the High Commissioner, the Special Rapporteur, the expert mechanism to conduct a study on the implementation and enforcement of treaty rights in view of these constitutional violations, as evidenced by the differential approach of Canada in Bill C-3 on Canada's Citizenship Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Laurie, for your statement. I now give the floor to the Association Akhal El-Hijab, Mina Abou-Dawieh.

Thank you very much, Chairperson. I am representing indigenous people vis-a-vis the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The commitments of Morocco towards indigenous people and energy transition in the context of climate change can in no case be done to the detriment of the Amazigh people and be a fig leaf to dispossess them of their ancestral lands and their natural resources without free, informed and prior informed prior consent and without respect for Article 8 of the Convention on Biodiversity. We are also concerned of the non-implementation of the constitutional rights concerning the Amazigh language. 15 years after the adoption of the constitution, teaching in Amazigh is ineffective across the whole national territory. and at the different educational levels. This pseudo-officialisation of the language has generated a precarious situation that we have been experiencing for four years now. Particularly, Amazigh language agents in administrative and institutional positions are now in a vulnerable situation vis-a-vis the public and private sectors. We call on Morocco to fully respect its international commitments. in line with the preamble of the 2011 constitution, in particular by ensuring the effective implementation of Article 8j of the Convention on Biodiversity. We also call for the guarantee of the implementation of Articles 5 and 6 in the Moroccan constitution to ensure the effective official implementation of Amazigh language rights as a key component of national identity and to ensure equality between citizens without discrimination. We call on AMREP to recommend to MAROC to reform its laws in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Anne Dennis. I'm a councillor with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. And News Walk welcomes the dialogue on the implementation of the country engagement mandate of the expert mechanism. As per the comment by Australia Re, close the Gap is really failing our people in Australia, and our organisation has paused all engagement with government at this time until there's genuine consultation. We do put recommendations forward to continue strengthening and promoting its country engagement mandate as a practical tool to support the implementation of the UNDRIP, to encourage states to proactively seek technical advice from the expert mechanism when developing or performing laws and policies affecting Indigenous peoples, three, to strengthen follow-up mechanisms to country engagement initiative to ensure recommendations lead to measurable implementation outcomes. Madam Chair, the value of country engagement mandate lies in its practical application. The implementation gap experienced by Indigenous people is often not due to the absence of international standards, it's the absence of political will and effective mechanisms to translate those standards into domestic laws, policy and practice. While the expert mechanism has previously engaged in Australia in relation to the contemporary removal of Aboriginal children, Australia has not yet benefited from a broader engagement on the implementation of the declaration or the development of domestic laws and policies affecting Indigenous peoples. The implementation gap reflected in Australia's recent universal periodic review. Australia rejected the majority of recommendations and only partially accepted a number of recommendations relating to the Indigenous rights. Out of the 330 recommendations, only 30% adopted. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the Tuvalu national government, Ms. Keiley Jensen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Kaylee Jansen from the Syilx Nation, which means people of the river. The Syilx Nation would like to thank the expert mechanism for the significant step of issuing technical advice to Canada regarding legislation in Canada to address continuing sex and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act, which will cause irreparable harm to families and First Nations. MRIP has called to end this discrimination and has raised concerns about the forced assimilation of First Nations in violation of the UN Declaration. The Senate of Canada made amendments to the legislation at the almost unanimous request of First Nations leaders, women, youth, and organizations across Canada. Despite this near-unanimous support, the Government of Canada insists it cannot accept the Senate amendments because further consultations with those very same First Nations are needed. As Secwepemc Nation, we determine who belongs to our nation and take actions accordingly. However, the Government of Canada must not be absolved of its responsibility to address the ongoing discrimination and assimilation that is the basis of the Indian Act. As a nation, we are currently working on a constitution and distinguishing who is Secwepemc, as this is our mandate. Being Secwepemctsin is not just a blood quantum. Being Secwepemctsin is being connected to our land, our water, our medicine, our language, and our salmon. It is a way of life and a way of being. Only Secwepemctsin can distinguish who is Secwepemctsin. We request the expert mechanism to undertake follow-up engagements with Canada regarding this important technical advice..

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the Asians of Russia, Lilia Mongush. You have the floor.

I'm a Tuvan activist representing the indigenous people from Tula, one of the Asian republics within Russia. Tuvans are only about 250,000 people today. Kremlin is using Tuvans in the war against Ukraine. Tula ranks among the first in terms of the number of deaths per capita. For such a small nation, this means irreparable demographic losses. Thousands of Tuvans remain orphans. Our land is rich in natural resources, but we do not control them. They are extracted by Russian oligarchs, Chinese companies, European business, including Swedish company, Orient Mining, without the free, prior, and informed consent of our people. The Kremlin calls Tuv a poor and subsidized region, but this poverty is a result of many years of Kremlin's colonial policy. Poverty and lack of prospects. force many to sign a contract with the army. In Tuva, war propaganda begins in kindergarten. Local activists estimate that about 10% of Tuvan children are members of paramilitary organizations such as the Youth Army. Those who speak openly about these problems are persecuted, labeled extremists or terrorists, forcing many to flee their lands, including my organization is in Russia a terrorist organization. Tuvans are told that this war is being waged against Nazism in Ukraine. However, Tuvans themselves regularly face xenophobia, discrimination in the central regions of Russia. I call upon the expert mechanism to look how the war impacts indigenous peoples and also on the question of militarization of children undermining the right to education, and call upon the Russian Federation to stop qualifying as terrorism those who speak about the rights of Indigenous peoples and protect human rights defenders and journalists. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Indonesia thanks the mechanisms for this opportunity for country engagements and welcomes the Chair's reflections that the most effective country engagements are jointly supported by the state concerned and the Indigenous and local communities through sustained dialogue and meaningful participations. This is the principle UNICEF shares in its efforts to strengthen the rights of our customary law communities within our constitutions. Aceh's post-conflict experience reflect this principle. The 2005 Helsinki MOU resolved decades of conflict through peaceful dialogue, supported by the law of the governing Aceh, which provides special autonomy and protects Acehnese customs and institutions. In Papua, development remains central to our national long-term development plan, implemented under Papua's special autonomy framework. This includes sustained fiscal transfer, education, expanded access to healthcare, housing programs, and strengthened community participations. National strategic projects in Papua accelerate this development within the same framework. Implementation challenges remain on environmental safeguards and stakeholder consultations, but we are proactively addressing these issues through various policies such as public participations, participatory methods, and the enforcement of spatial planning and environmental impact assessment. At the same time, security concerns linked to violence by armed group also affect the pace of the development. In 2025 alone, the National Human Rights Institution recorded 116 violent incidents in Papua affecting civilian lives. However, these concerns are not and will not be a reason to ignore the development in Papua. We remain committed to protecting our people. Madam Chair, as a matter of principle, country engagement must be grounded in cooperative dialogue and the declaration itself, and should not in any event extend to questions on the political status of any part of a state's territory. This is clearly a matter outside the mechanism's mandate, and which affirms that territorial integrity of sovereign states. Indonesia's readiness to engage with these mechanisms remains unwavering, grounded in our aspiration to strengthen the rights of our communities, customary law communities, within that framework. We remain open to continued constructive dialogue with the mechanisms and all stakeholders present. Thank you.

I thank Indonesia for your statement. I now give the floor to the Ontario Native Women's Association.

Thank you, Chair. The Ontario Native Women's Association thanks the expert mechanism for the technical advice provided to Canada regarding Canada's legislated sex discrimination against First Nation women and our families. We as First Nation women have the right to our distinct identities, cultures, communities, and nations, as well as the right to pass on our identity and culture to our children. UN treaty bodies and Canada's National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls have linked sex discrimination in the Indian Act with these high rates of violence against us, which has risen since the National Inquiry was launched in 2016. In fact, it has doubled. Canada has an opportunity for a unified act of reconciliation by immediately ending sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Our human rights, our lives, our safety and well-being as Indigenous women depend on it. We recommend the inclusion of Indigenous women in all decisions that impact our lives, our families and our nations. This is our right under Article 18 of UNDRIP to speak on our own behalf. In Canada, this means ensuring decision-making is inclusive by extending the nation-to-nation approach to Indigenous women and the organizations we choose to represent us. Again, we thank MRIP for adding your voice and technical advice to this urgent issue. Country engagements are an integral part of MRIP's mandate. Globally, we are facing increasing anti-rights and anti-Indigenous rhetoric and actions. Indigenous women's voices, solutions, and leadership are needed now more than ever. The liquidity crisis must not be used as an excuse to limit the mandate of MRIP and to reduce the frequency or depth of country engagements and follow-up. The expert mechanisms work and mandate must be maintained. You are integral to the continued participation, leadership, and safety of Indigenous women. As such, we call on all member states to take seriously their commitment and obligations to human rights by fully paying their contributions to the UN system.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Mr. Orla Ortiz from the Geneva pour les Droits de l'Homme Formation Internationale.

Geneva pour les Droits de l'Homme.

Geneva for Human Rights.

I don't see the speaker in the room. I now give the floor to the Uru Dialogue. Ms. Delaney.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of Uluru Dialogues as part of the delegation from Australia. We request that the expert mechanism make two recommendations to Australia. The first, that Australia urgently reform child removal laws and policies in every jurisdiction through a self-determined process led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, communities, and experts, with the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, self-determination, and real participation in decision making embedded in law. Second, that Australia support independent, Indigenous-led monitoring of that reform, with MREP formally recognising the ongoing removal of our children as a breach of articles 7, 8 and 22 of the Declaration. We raise this in direct response to MREP's own 2024 country report on Australia. That report made clear recommendations. More than two years on, they remain largely unimplemented. The newest data from the Family Matters report released in December 2025 shows Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children now make up 45% of all children in out-of-home care nationally, though we are under 6% of the child population. Australia's own Closing the Gap tracking confirms this is getting worse. The government's most recent assessment rates progress on reducing overrepresentation as worsening against 2019 baseline. This pattern of unimplemented recommendations is not unique to this committee. In its response to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review last month, Australia accepted fewer than 40% of the 332 recommendations it received, including rejecting a national plan to implement this declaration. And in April this year, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, acting under its early warning and urgent action procedure, found itself gravely concerned that the same structural discrimination our children face in education, healthcare, and housing is a key factor driving their heightened vulnerability to arrest and incarceration. Removal and incarceration share the same root. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the United Confederation of the Taino Peoples, Lizet Livia. You have the floor.

Abundant blessings, Chair, distinguished experts, representatives of states and Indigenous relatives. My name is Dr. Lissette Rivera Guani, and I am a 2026 United Nations Indigenous Fellow. Meaningful country engagement requires more than dialogue. It requires a full implementation of UNDRIP and the meaningful inclusion of all Indigenous peoples. including those living in non-self-governing, unincorporated, and other territories that remain under colonial administration. Despite centuries of colonization, Dayino peoples continue to exercise our inherent rights, revitalize our culture, and strengthen our representative institutions throughout Bodingen, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Yet, indigenous peoples living under unresolved colonial arrangements often remain overlooked in national implementation efforts and in discussions concerning indigenous rights. The declaration affirms our rights to self-determination, to maintain our own institutions, and to participate in decision-making through our representative institutions, including through free, prior, and informed consent, as reflected in articles 3, 5, 18, 19, and 32. Effective country engagement must ensure these rights are realized in practice for all indigenous peoples, regardless of political or territorial status. We encourage MRIP in its engagement with states to give greater attention to the experiences of Indigenous Peoples in non-self-governing, unincorporated and other territories that remain under colonial administration, and to promote dialogue that advances the full implementation of the Declaration in these situations. UCTP stands ready to work with MRIP, states and other Indigenous Peoples to advance this important work. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Peru. I don't see Peru in the room. I then give the floor to the Saami Council.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Nila Johan Valgappaa, and I speak on behalf of the Saami Council. This statement is also supported by the Saami Parliament in Norway. One year ago, we welcomed a technical advisory note following EMRIP's country engagement mission to Norway. The note included recommendations aimed at advancing the implementation of the rights of the Sami people. One recommendation was directed to the Sami people. EMRIP encouraged the development of the Sami protocol on how free, prior, and informed consent should be understood in a Sami context. The Samic Council is pleased to report that this work is underway and we expect to present the protocol later this year. The terms of reference for EMRIP's country engagement to Norway provide that upon request and subject to EMRIP's assessments of developments, EMRIP may undertake follow-up activities. As Norway has not implemented any of the recommendations, we believe such follow-up is now necessary. Norway requires further technical assistance from EMRIP to begin its legislation and administrative practices into conformity with international law as reflected in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We will therefore formally request further assistance from the expert mechanism. We remain committed to engaging constructively and in good faith to assist Norway in bringing its legislation into line with the Declaration. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Pabachya Katagram Yana Samhati Samati, Augustine Chakma. You have the floor. Was that my pronunciation, maybe? Could be. I don't see a hand up, so I now give the floor to Alexandra Chanatal from the Organisation des Nations Autochtones de Guyane.

Organisation des Nations Autochtones de Guyane.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. My name is Alexandre Malouly Sommer. I'm speaking as an Indigenous jurist belonging to Kalina people in French Guyana, located in South America on the border with Brazil. As we can recall, the state of France took commitments vis-a-vis Indigenous peoples during the French Guyana agreements in 2016. Now, these lands have not been returned, and also our rivers are being polluted, and this means our people are also being poisoned. And eight years later, this French policy is a failure. But today we're seeing a new threat in French Guyana. Political officials state now that our territory should exploit fully its oil, its gold and minerals. They see extracting industry as the only way for the development of the country. We reject this approach. Our Amazon forest is not a source of natural resources. It is our land, our history, our identity. to obtain economic autonomy, to obtain autonomy of land is a need, but it cannot be a pretext to sacrifice the heritage of future generations and cannot continue with methods of exploitation that were at the origin of colonization in our lands. All of this is done to the detriment of Indigenous peoples. In this context, we should work together, indigenous peoples and all people of Guyana, to decide about our future. There are other ways, agriculture, fishing, tourism. As climate change is happening, we have to realize that our decisions will have an irreversible impact on future generations. We demand that the French state and Guianan elected officials to respect our right to free, prior and informed consent before any decision affecting our territories is taken. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I'll be giving the floor to the last speaker before we turn to our panelists for the final remarks. I'll give the floor to Benedicte Degosse from the Association Chagassians de France.

Madam Chair, I want to raise the situation of the Sakushan people because our case shows why MREIT must keep paying attention when stated, invoke the language of rights and decolonization, but in reality, leave indigenous people out of the decision that shape their future. Last year in May 25, the United Kingdom and Mauritius signed an agreement on Chagos. It is presented as historical solution, but for us, it is hard not to see it as a deal shaped first by strategic and geographical interest, not by justice. The truth is simply, we Sargossians were not at the center of this process. We were excluded, and the result is that Diego Gracia remained close to us while our future is discussed by others without us. That is why I must speak about both the United Kingdom and the Mauritius. The UK say it is recognized past wrong, yet it keeps the strategy, us use of Diego Gracia, and once again decided over our homeland without our participation. Mauritius says defend the Sargasso Sea, yet it accepted an agreement made without us and accepted our exclusion from Diego Garcia and from other islands as they agreed over a de facto veto power of the UK for any development project, including resettlement. Both states speak of decolonization, but denying the people most concerned the right to be heard. This is, in reality, the pursuit of geographical interests and the language of decolonization. For that reason, I respectfully ask EMRIT to keep the United Kingdom, Mauritius, and the situation on its agenda. This is all the more important because both countries continue to deny Sa'agsiun indigeneity while taking decisions that affect our land, our identity, and our future. Thank you.

I thank you for your statement. And that will close the list of speakers for today's panel. And I'd like to thank all the rich and fruitful statements from the floor. I would now like to give the floor back to the panellists for concluding remarks. You have three minutes each, and I would like to start with Mr. Mattson.

Thank you again to my co-panellists, to the honourable expert members, the secretariat, and to Canada for receiving this request. Thank you to everyone who spoke from the floor with their thoughtful interventions. The substantive dialogue this afternoon demonstrates the importance of the element of MRIP's mandate, and I am grateful for having had the opportunity to participate in this way. MRIP's unique ability to provide such substantial interpretation of the rights of Indigenous peoples as affirmed in the Declaration in such specific situations as Canada's continued legislation forced assimilation is deeply appreciated. The engagement demonstrates the practical role of MRIP in helping to solve a challenging situation in this very specific state context. I wish to close by simply reiterating my thanks to MRIP for this technical advisory note and urging Canada to take immediate action on implementing the clear and direct recommendations offered in the advice. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Madsen. I now invite Ambassador Peter MacDougall.

Madam Chair, Canada thanks the members of MRIP, the Indigenous requester, Mr. Matson, fellow panellists, and all those who contributed to today's dialogue. More broadly, we have heard the urgency of addressing the continuing and intergenerational effects of inequities in the Indian Act. These are not abstract legal questions. They concern identity, dignity, family and community connections, and the ability to transmit recognition and belonging to future generations. Bill S-2, as I said earlier, is an important but limited step in a much longer process. It remains before Parliament and is subject to the parliamentary process. Canada will convey the many substantive perspectives and views expressed today to relevant departments and officials. in Canada. We have also heard that legislative change must lead to meaningful results in practice. Implementation must consider accessible and timely registration, the needs of affected individuals, and the implications for First Nations communities. Canada recognizes the strong support for ending the second generation cut-off. First Nations have also expressed different views on how this change should be implemented and on the future exercise of First Nations jurisdiction over registration, membership, and citizenship. Through the collaborative process on the second generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds, consultation and cooperation are focused on how to advance solutions that are rights-respecting, sustainable, and informed by First Nations priorities. Canada will continue to consider MRIP's advice and the views expressed today. We remain committed to working in consultation and cooperation with First Nations supporting their inherent right to self-determination and advancing the full and effective implementation of UNDRIP. Thank you.

I thank the ambassador for his closing remarks. I now give the floor to DTI PIACI representative Marcelli. You have three minutes. Thank you.

I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity given to us and talk about our territories and directly hear the voices of Indigenous Peoples. I would like to stress that Brazil really wants to lead climate change agenda and has to begin with providing greater support to Indigenous Peoples, access our territories and and promote our traditional knowledge and ensure that they support the first line of protection of forests. And we do not wish to see the situation repeat a situation that happened to other people living in isolation in Brazil.

I now give the floor to Mr. Mancini for your closing remarks, please.

I would like to thank all participants and thank EMRIP for this opportunity. to understand and also to be able to make recommendations to the Brazilian government to ensure that the government respects the territories of indigenous peoples in isolation and ensure that there's immediate demarcation of these territories. And I would like to thank everyone here so that we all understand the need to respect the life and human beings that live in nature, that protect the biodiversity of the Brazilian Amazon. Thank you.

Thank you for your closing remarks. I now turn the floor to the Minister from the Permanent Mission of Brazil for your closing remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen. As we conclude the discussion, I would like to reiterate the Brazilian government's appreciation to UNRIP for conducting its engagement mission to Brazil and for the constructive exchange that has taken place today. I also wish to acknowledge once again the important role played by GTI PIACI in proposing and supporting the mission, as well as the contribution of the indigenous peoples participated in the meetings, shared their perspectives, and welcomed the expert mechanism to their territories. The engagement mission provided an opportunity for direct and substantive dialogue among WAM group, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and Brazilian public institutions. It allowed the mechanism to examine both the progress achieved and the challenges that remain in the promotion and protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, with particular attention to peoples in isolation and initial contact. The discussions held in Rondonia and Brasilia addressed issues of central importance, including the protection and management of Indigenous territories, demarcation processes, the removal of intruders, free, prior and informed consultation, and the principles of non-contact, precaution, and self-determination. The Brazilian government remains committed to strengthen its indigenous policy. In recent years, Brazil has expanded indigenous participations in public decision making, resumed territorial demarcation and protection policy, strengthened institutional responsible for indigenous affairs, and increased the presence of indigenous representatives in national and international forums. We recognize, however, that significant challenges persist. International cooperation, technical advice, and open dialogue can contribute to the improvement of legal frameworks, institutional practices, and public policies. In this spirit, the Brazilian government remains open to continued dialogue with AMREP, indigenous peoples, civil society, and all relevant stakeholders. We look forward to receiving the mechanisms report on the mission and to considering its findings and recommendations with due attention. We trust that the report will contribute to a better understanding of the progress made, the difficulties encountered, and the measures required to strengthen the protection of indigenous peoples' rights in Brazil. Brazil will continue to engage constructively with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and to support multilateral cooperation in this field. Thank you.

Thank the Minister for his closing statements. Before I turn to my fellow experts for any remarks or comments they may have on the panelists or the interventions here today, I would just like to take two more interventions from the floor, and I'd like to call Alidia from Images for Inclusion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We express our deep concern with the serious situation related to what happened in 15 July 2019, violence happened here when the representative of Chile present the Supreme Decree No. 66 from 2014 of the Minister of Social Development that establishes the requirements related to indigenous consultations as an example of success in compliance with UNDRIP. However, only two months later, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights took a decision in its No. 66/2014, recommended a revision of this legislation, including the decree of Chile number 66, to be able to establish an independent mechanism that guarantees free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples related to legislative or administrative measures or projects that may affect their territorial rights, including the right to provide or deny such consent in line with international standards, especially under Now, so in paragraph 2C of resolution 3325, we would like to respectfully ask the EMR that unifies the criteria of operations of UN bodies and officially provides assistance to the Chilean state to reform the legal decision in connection with decree 66. Also, we'd like to ask the Human Rights Council to extend these measures of compliance to the recommendations made by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and also guarantee, ensure that Chile guarantees to take measures to protect and guarantee access of indigenous peoples to all sacred religious cultural sites and ensure that the indigenous people have the right to prior consent.

I, being mindful of the time, I'd like to now turn back to my expert colleagues. and for any comments they may have. And I recognize Anixa.

Thank you. I'd like to first thank the panelists for their wonderful presentations and also the other statements that were made in the room. I would like to contribute to this dialogue related to country engagement of EMRIT and share my ideas related to the mission that was carried out in Brazil and visits and discussions with Indigenous Peoples in isolation. I would like to thank the Government of Brazil for inviting the mechanism and for the cooperation and the readiness to carry out dialogue, demonstrating throughout the entire visit. I also like to express our recognition to the International Working Group for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples in isolation and that were at the origin of this mission and their commitment is fundamental to ensure the protection of the rights of these peoples. I'd like to also thank the University of Arizona for their support and also thank the indigenous peoples and the authorities, traditional authorities and public institutions and organizations of civil society and all of those who generously shared their knowledge and their wisdom with our delegation. During these 10 days, the delegation visited the Uwa territory in the Rodania state with a focus on environmental protection and also visited the different villages and the Wapao people. And we also had meetings in Brasilia with authorities, representatives, indigenous organizations, national authorities of human rights, organizations of civil society, and relevant research institutions. The mission made it possible to have a direct dialogue with organizations that work on the protection of territories where indigenous peoples' voluntary isolation are located. The country engagement is one of the most important and valuable tools of the EMRIP mechanism. It helps us build dialogue between states and Indigenous Peoples and know firsthand the realities on the ground and also be able to move forward the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The mission reaffirmed the importance to protect these groups of indigenous peoples that are one of the most vulnerable groups in the world. Their physical and spiritual survival depends directly on their lands, natural resources, as well as the full respect of their decision to remain in isolation and the principle of no forced contact. During our exchange of views, we have appreciated the efforts to strengthen the protection of these groups and also the challenges that still remain. Indigenous peoples in isolation continue to face risks related to invasions of their territories, illegal mining industries, and land grabbing, and the expansion of infrastructure, environmental degradations, violence, everything that threatens their survival. Also, any non- and exposure to different diseases represent especially serious risks. This reality show that the protection of the territories represents the main guarantee for the survival of indigenous peoples in isolation. This requires sustained cooperation between states, indigenous peoples, and representative institutions, as well as public policies that are built with full respect of free, prior, and informed consent and self-determination in line with international legal standards. We trust that this country engagement will strengthen dialogue, cooperation, and exchange of best practices. The delegation will continue to analyze the results of our work and will be presenting our findings. I must conclude by thanking all the speakers that shared these images that took me back to our vision. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Anixa, the country lead for the Brazil Country Engagement Team. I now recognize Ojot Ojulu, who was also an integral part of the Brazil country engagement visit.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. And in the interest of time, I would like to say a few appreciation words for the International Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and initial contact for inviting EMREP to undertake the country engagement to Brazil. I would like to thank you too for the warm welcome and the excellent hospitality extended to our delegation throughout the visit, particularly during our visit to the indigenous communities of the Iro Wawow indigenous territory, as we were able to see from the pictures. I also want to reiterate that the presentations you organized, together with the meetings and interviews with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders, made our visit especially meaningful. They provided us with a deeper understanding of the human rights challenges faced by Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. This valuable information will assist IMRIP in developing practical, evidence-based policy recommendations aimed at improving the protection and realization of their human rights. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Government of Brazil for its openness, cooperation and constructive engagement with IMRIP throughout the visit. We were able to meet with all stakeholders identified in the programme, including the relevant government authorities responsible for Indigenous Peoples' issues. The access provided and the information shared will enable us to prepare a well-informed advisory note that reflects both the progress made and the challenges that remain. We look forward to continuing this constructive cooperation during the follow-up and implementation of the recommendations that will emerge from the advisory note. I thank you.

Thank you, Odo. I now recognize my colleague, Antonina Gorbunova.

Please, the floor is yours.

Dear friends, brothers and sisters, representatives of States, representatives of UN organizations, colleagues, at the outset, I would like to greet all of you during this 19th session of EMRAT and wish all of us productive work and constructive discussions. I'd like to express the hope that Member States can come up with decisions that will ensure the sustainable funding and realization of the mandate of EMRIP. This is especially important in order to ensure that EMRIP can continuously and fully implement its mandate, including country engagements and country missions. Country engagements are one of the most effective and practical elements of the work of the expert mechanisms that contribute to resolving specific issues and improving national mechanisms in terms of reaching the objectives of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. As we have seen, indigenous peoples require follow-up consultations in order to implement the technical recommendations of EMRAT following the country engagement. And the most important thing that I wanted to say is that we need to step up our efforts in order to ensure that country engagements continue with countries from Africa, Asia, and the region I represent in order to ensure the realization of this instrument in all social cultural regions of the world. Thank you.

I'd like to thank my colleague Antonina for her remarks. I now recognize Cheryl Lightfoot. Cheryl, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. I want to add my voice to my colleagues and say how much we appreciate the briefings and reflections from the recent country engagements in Brazil and Canada, and also the updates on progress from the previous engagements with Australia, New Zealand and Norway, and the positive comments on concrete outcomes from the Yuki Mexico, Sweden engagement and the Finland engagement. We've also heard some reflections concerning regional balance. MRIP absolutely shares the aspiration to see this mandate serving Indigenous peoples and states in all seven sociocultural regions. The interventions highlight the potential of the country engagement mandate in all of its dimensions, which can include a country visit, facilitate a dialogue, or even advice on proposed legislation. There's one further dimension of the country engagement mandate that has not been activated since the expanded mandate. States may request EMRIP's advice on implementing recommendations they receive from treaty bodies and special procedures. So we hope and encourage states will make use of this part of the mandate as well. We would underline that under the country engagement mandate, EMRIP can only act in a country engagement upon receiving a written request. And EMRIP engages in a country visit only once terms of reference are agreed by all parties, the requester, the EMRIP, and the member state concerned. We warmly welcome requests from Indigenous peoples and states in regions not yet engaged, including Asia, Africa, and the Russia regions. The request process has extremely low barriers, and information is available on the EMRIG website. Both the secretariat and individual members are available and stand ready to provide informal guidance and advice to those considering a request. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and offer my support for what they have provided. to the discussion. In closing, I notice we're at six o'clock, so in closing, I would like to again warmly thank all our panelists for their rich and fruitful contributions to the topic of country engagement. And with that, we will close day one of the session. Thank you, everyone.