A/HRC/39/17 reparation.5 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (art. 40) affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to access to, and to prompt decisions through, just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such decisions shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and to international human rights. 25. Furthermore, article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out the right to effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for, actions which have the aim or effect of dispossessing indigenous peoples of their lands, territories or resources. Article 10 stipulates that indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands unless they have provided their free, prior and informed consent. Should violations have occurred, victims have the right to fair redress, including restitution and compensation, and, where possible, the option of returning to their lands. When this is not possible, they are entitled to just, fair and equitable compensation for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged. Compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress (art. 28). 26. Transnational corporations and other business enterprises should respect human rights, as set out in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, which rest on three pillars: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for access to an effective remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses. Principle 18 requires that business enterprises identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts through meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups as an integral part of their responsibility to respect human rights. V. Root causes and drivers behind attacks and criminalization 27. The intensified competition over natural resources led by private companies, at times with government complicity, has placed indigenous communities seeking to protect their traditional lands at the forefront as targets of persecution. 28. As documented by the Special Rapporteur, instances of criminalization and violence arise, in most cases, when indigenous leaders and community members voice opposition to large projects relating to extractive industries, agribusiness, infrastructure, hydroelectric dams and logging. In other instances, indigenous peoples’ ways of life and subsistence are deemed illegal or incompatible with conservation policies, leading to the prohibition of indigenous traditional livelihoods and the arrest, detention, forced eviction and violations of other human rights of indigenous peoples. This topic was explored in her report to the General Assembly (A/71/229). An additional emerging concern is the rush to undertake climate change adaption and mitigation measures which, unless they build in human rights safeguards, risk undermining the rights of indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur explored this issue in a previous report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/36/46). 29. Since she assumed the mandate, the Special Rapporteur has witnessed a number of large-scale projects first-hand, including during official visits to Brazil (A/HRC/33/42/Add.1), Guatemala (A/HRC/39/17/Add.3), Honduras (A/HRC/33/42/Add.2), Mexico (A/HRC/39/17/Add.2), the United States of America (A/HRC/36/46/Add.1) and the Sápmi region of Norway, Sweden and Finland (A/HRC/33/42/Add.3). She has heard numerous testimonies and continuously receives information, as part of her duties under the mandate to address communications on alleged 5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. 7