CULTURAL RIGHTS Knowledge Concerning Ainu Traditions on 8 May 1997. This law repeals earlier laws aimed at assimilating Ainu, refers to the Ainu as a people, and guarantees the promotion and teaching of Ainu culture. Case study 2 Ancestral burial ground or hotel? Often violations of cultural rights are perpetrated by private actors such as corporations. As noted above, private actors have obligations to respect cultural rights and states have an obligation to protect against abuses committed by private persons. In Hopu and Bessert v. France, a case decided by the HRC in 1997, members of an indigenous Tahitian community asserted violations of, among others, the rights to culture, family and privacy in connection with construction of a hotel on their ancestral lands that also entailed destruction of an ancestral burial ground. They were dispossessed of the land in question by the courts in 1961 when it was awarded to a corporation. The land was subsequently leased and then sub-leased to two other companies in 1990, one of which began to clear the land for construction. Community members occupied the land in protest in 1992, maintaining that the land and the lagoon bordering it represented ‘an important place in their history, their culture and their life’ 39 and included a pre-European burial site. After attempts to address the issue in domestic courts failed, recourse was sought in the HRC. Because France had registered a reservation to Article 27, the HRC declined to examine a violation of that article, but instead found violations of privacy and family rights. In so finding, the HRC stated that ‘cultural traditions should be taken into account when defining the term ‘family’ in a specific situation. It transpires from the authors’ claims that they consider the relationship to their ancestors to be an essential element of their identity and to play an important role in their family life.’ 40 The HRC reached this conclusion even though the authors were unable to prove a direct kinship link to the persons interred in the burial ground. Additionally, and importantly, many of the members of the HRC believed that this issue should have been addressed under Article 27, indicating that the HRC will be willing to address cases such as this in the future as violations of cultural rights. Notes 1 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of Guatemala (1986), p.114. 2 Among others, see, CESCR General Comment No.14, on The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 27; General Comment No.13, on The Right to Education (Art. 13), CESCR UN doc. E/C.12/1999/10, para. 15. 89