A/HRC/19/60/Add.1 in isolation and in initial contact maintain with their land and territories, and their situation of vulnerability, mean that their territorial rights can take precedence over economic interests and interests defined by the State. Furthermore, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has underlined that the close relationship of indigenous peoples with the land must be acknowledged and understood as the fundamental basis for their culture, spiritual life, wholeness, economic survival, and preservation and transmission to future generations. 16 F. Right to conscientious objection 54. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that the right to conscientious objection on ethical or religious grounds is explicitly recognized in article 37 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the relatively high number of conscientious objectors in Paraguay demonstrates that the constitutional guarantee of conscientious objection to compulsory military service is currently respected in practice. Nonetheless, the Human Rights Committee regretted, in its concluding observations on Paraguay of October 2005, that access to information on conscientious objection appeared to be unavailable in rural areas and recommended proper dissemination of information about the exercise of the right to conscientious objection to the entire population. 17 55. Law No. 4.013, as promulgated on 18 June 2010, established a new procedure on the recognition of conscientious objectors and provides for an alternative civilian service. Whether this law will lead to infringements of the right to conscientious objection – a fear voiced by some civil society organizations – remains to be seen. Several provisions of Law No. 4.013 have been identified as problematic by certain stakeholders, including by associations of conscientious objectors. For example, it is unclear what would happen if objectors did not meet the deadline, pursuant to article 4, of 20 days to establish their objection since notification of conscription into the army. Civil society organizations questioned the impartiality of the composition of the National Council for Conscientious Objection, given the participation of a representative of the Ministry of Defence. Furthermore, the formulation of article 20 is unclear and may imply that those who do not duly comply with alternative service might be obliged to do military service. In addition, article 21 was criticized as unconstitutional since it may retroactively apply to those who declared their objection before Law No. 4.013 was promulgated, thus possibly having a punitive effect, which would be contrary to the spirit of article 129 of the Constitution. Furthermore, article 23 of Law No. 4.013 on “civil defence” in a state of national defence or situation of international armed conflict might be interpreted as implying that conscientious objectors would be required to participate in activities of a military nature. 56. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that conscientious objectors should be exempted from combat but could be required to perform comparable alternative service of various kinds, which should be compatible with their reasons for conscientious objection. 18 16 17 18 16 See Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, judgement of 31 August 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 149; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, judgement of 19 November 2004, Series C No. 116, para. 85; and Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, judgement of 17 June 2005, Series C No. 125, paras. 131 and 135 (“The culture of the members of the indigenous communities directly relates to a specific way of being, seeing, and acting in the world, developed on the basis of their close relationship with their traditional territories and the resources therein, not only because they are their main means of subsistence, but also because they are part of their worldview, their religiosity, and therefore, of their cultural identity.”). CCPR/C/PRY/CO/2, para. 18. See E/CN.4/1992/52, para. 185, and A/HRC/6/5, para. 22.