A/HRC/48/75 processes affecting their rights and interests. 20 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recommended that, in line with its general recommendation No. 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, in defining who is eligible to vote for members of an indigenous parliament, the State accord due weight to the rights of the indigenous people to self-determination, to determine their own membership and not to be subjected to forced assimilation. 21 The International Labour Organization and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights also indicated that, self-identification was key in the debate at the national and regional levels regarding the legal recognition of indigenous peoples.22 14. All the rights in the Declaration are indivisible, interdependent and grounded in the overarching right to self-determination. 23 The exercise of self-determination is therefore indispensable for indigenous peoples’ enjoyment of all their other rights, including, importantly, land rights (arts. 25–28, 30 and 32) and political participation (arts. 18–20 and 34). The Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have also made the connection between land rights and selfdetermination.24 The connection between self-determination and the right to participation in the decision-making process and to the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in matters affecting them has also been analysed in previous reports of the Expert Mechanism. 25 In a case in Ecuador in 2019, a first instance court, whose judgment was subsequently upheld, indicated that: “The relationship between the right to self-determination and indigenous peoples’ participation in decision-making is an ongoing process, as this ensures that indigenous peoples continue to participate in decision-making and retain control over their destinies, which means that institutions must be designed to enable indigenous peoples to make decisions in relation to their internal and local affairs, and also to participate collectively in external decision-making processes, in accordance with relevant human rights standards.”26 It reaffirmed that the basis for prior consultation is self-determination.27 15. The right to self-determination has an internal and external dimension. The former is determined by the physical dimensions of the State and the rights of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development, including by taking part in the conduct of public affairs without outside interference.28 For the first time, the Human Rights Committee made a specific reference to internal self-determination under article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in landmark cases against Finland in 2019 and cited the Declaration as an authority in its analysis of indigenous rights. 29 In its decisions, the Committee noted that the Sami Parliament ensured an internal selfdetermination process that was necessary for the continued viability and well-being of the indigenous community as a whole. It found that Finland had improperly intervened in the Sami’s rights to political participation regarding their specific rights as an indigenous people, finding a violation of articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant, as interpreted in the light of article 1. 16. A primary manifestation of “external” determination is the right of indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 See E/C.12/NAM/CO/1. CERD/C/FIN/CO/20-22, para. 12; and see CERD/C/FIN/CO/23. See www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/ wcms_115929.pdf. See A/HRC/45/38. See CRC/C/BRA/CO/2-4; and CERD/C/AUS/CO/18-20. Submission from Mauro Barelli; see also A/HRC/39/62; and A/HRC/45/38. Tribunal de Garantías Penales of Pastaza, decision of 9 May 2019 (case No. 16171-2019-00001), pp. 17 and 81 and annex 2. Ibid, p. 63. See Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015); and Käkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/124/D/2950/2017). See Ibid.; see also CCPR/C/FIN/CO/7. 5