CERD/C/106/D/61/2017 Escaleras indigenous community in keeping with their cultural and spiritual traditions. The marriage was recorded in the ancestral marriage register of the Escaleras indigenous community 1 and an ancestral marriage certificate was issued by the Confederación de Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichwa del Ecuador. 2 In 2015, following the couple’s arrest during a march in defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms. Lavinas Picq’s visa was revoked. A deportation procedure was initiated, obliging Ms. Lavinas Picq to leave the country. The petitioner and Ms. Lavinas Picq applied for a family reunification visa so that she could return to Ecuador to live with her husband, resume her employment and reintegrate her social network. The visa application was denied because the marriage had not been recorded in the State party’s civil register. The petitioner sought to have his marriage registered with the Directorate General for Civil Registration, Identification and Certification; however, his request was denied on the grounds that the State party does not recognize marriages officiated by traditional indigenous authorities but, rather, only those officiated by civil authorities affiliated with the civil registry. The petitioner initiated constitutional protection proceedings before the Criminal Court of the Metropolitan District of Quito, requesting that his marriage be entered in the civil register and that his wife be granted a family reunification visa. The application for constitutional protection was dismissed on the grounds that the marriage was not legally valid because the indigenous authorities were not competent to officiate and register marriages and on the grounds that there was nothing preventing the petitioner and his wife from being married by the competent authority. The petitioner lodged an appeal with the Pichincha Provincial Court, which was dismissed on the grounds that the marriage was not officiated in keeping with the relevant law, namely, the Civil Code and the Organic Act on Identity and Civil Data Management. The petitioner alleges that the State party’s refusal to recognize his marriage, which had been officiated by a legally and legitimately constituted community authority that was recognized by the community assembly constitutes discrimination. The petitioner also alleges that his wife’s visa was denied in retaliation for his defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, especially in relation to extractive activities in indigenous territories. The petitioner maintains that there has been a violation not only of his individual rights but also of the collective rights of indigenous peoples to preserve their culture, traditions, ways, customs and historical continuity. The facts of the present case violate the right of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination and autonomy in matters of jurisdiction, procedures and their own age-old institutions, such as marriage, which predates the State and is made up of rites, allegories, ceremonies and formalities that are specific to indigenous peoples and are based on their cultural and spiritual world views. The petitioner also maintains that his right to due process was violated when, after a judge suspended his wife’s deportation, the Minister of the Interior requested the court to consult the Ministry in taking the final decision, thus amounting to interference by the executive in judicial affairs. 1.3 On 4 December 2019, under article 14 of the Convention and rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee declared the communication admissible. First, regarding competence ratione personae, the Committee determined that the complaint presented by the petitioner on behalf of indigenous peoples, whose collective rights he claims were violated by the non-recognition of indigenous marriage, is generic. Consequently, the Committee decided to limit its consideration to the complaint presented by the petitioner on his own behalf as the person directly and personally affected by the refusal to register his marriage and by the denial of his wife’s visa. Secondly, the Committee found that the petitioner, having initiated constitutional protection proceedings and lodged an appeal, had exhausted all domestic remedies that could reasonably be considered available and effective in connection with the refusal to register his marriage and the denial of his wife’s visa. Thirdly, the Committee found that the petitioner had not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to his allegations of political persecution and declared that part of the communication inadmissible. Fourthly, the Committee found that the petitioner had not sufficiently substantiated the part of the communication dealing with the due process violation and therefore also declared that part of the communication inadmissible. Lastly, regarding the petitioner’s allegation that he 1 2 2 Escaleras ancestral community, ancestral marriage register, Victoria del Portete parish, Tarqui, 21 August 2013. Confederación de Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichwa del Ecuador, ancestral marriage register, 30 August 2013. GE.22-11683