A/HRC/30/54 72. In response to this question, most States made reference to work to implement international human rights treaties, such as ILO Convention No. 169 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, rather than to treaties or other constructive agreements with indigenous peoples. Peru indicated that it did not have any treaties with indigenous peoples, but there were agreements arising from consultation processes, which must follow national laws on prior consultation. Colombia reported on measures it was taking to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. 73. Only one response from indigenous peoples addressed the specific issue of constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples. Asociación Kuna Unidos por Napguana highlighted the recognition of Kuna territory by the State in 1938, and recognition of their authorities (Congreso General Kuna) in 1953. They also referred to more recent national laws protecting cultural heritage and traditional handicrafts of the Kuna people and the establishment of the Ngäbe-Buglé indigenous territory in 1997. H. Indigenous women, youth, children, elders, persons with disabilities and any other vulnerable groups 74. The questionnaire posed the following question to States: “Has the State taken any particular measures to promote and protect the rights of indigenous women, youth, children, elders, persons with disabilities and any other vulnerable groups (such as LGBT persons)? If yes, please provide details. If not, please outline any plans to develop measures relating to these groups.” 75. In its follow-up study on access to justice, the Expert Mechanism drew attention to the fact that indigenous individuals who belonged to other vulnerable groups often suffered from discrimination on multiple grounds, which could put them in a particularly disadvantaged situation with respect to their rights. The Expert Mechanism advised States to “address the root causes of multiple forms of discrimination facing these groups, including systemic biased use of discretionary powers, poverty, marginalization and violence against indigenous women” (A/HRC/27/65, annex, para. 8). 76. In response to this question, many States identified general policies aimed at addressing the situation of women, youth, older persons and persons with disabilities. It was not always clear from the responses whether there were specific programmes targeted at indigenous persons within these groups. 77. Since 2012, Colombia had implemented a programme for the protection of the rights of internally displaced indigenous women, seeking to address the disproportionate impact of forced displacement on this group caused by armed conflict. At the heart of this public policy was the recognition of displaced indigenous women as subjects of special protection by the State. The design of the programme included consultations with indigenous peoples. Colombia also had a National Action Plan for the protection of the human rights of indigenous women. 78. Peru highlighted three particularly vulnerable groups identified in State policy: indigenous individuals who did not have identification documents, which perpetuated the level of invisibility within the State; indigenous peoples living in border areas where there was very difficult access; and indigenous women, particularly in terms of including them in national level plans and policies on gender. 79. In Japan, the Third Basic Plan for Gender Equality approved by the cabinet in 2010 stipulated that measures should be taken for Ainu women in cases where they were forced into difficult situations due to their gender. 11