A/HRC/30/53 remains and sacred and cultural objects, whether held in private or public collections. 36 The General Assembly affirmed and recognized the importance of repatriating indigenous peoples’ ceremonial objects and human remains.37 72. Although some potential avenues for redress or protection might exist in legal terms, notably via the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (2005), in reality it is extremely difficult for indigenous peoples to receive proper protection and reparation when their cultural heritage, particularly intangible heritage, is misappropriated. While the role of public authorities is crucial to ensuring such repatriation, the repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains requires the cooperation of the places where the objects and remains are stored, such as museums and auction houses. 73. Some legislation and policies stipulating repatriation of indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage exist. In 2011, the Australian Government adopted a policy on indigenous repatriation which facilitates the return of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ ancestral remains from overseas institutions to their communities of origin. To date, this programme has facilitated the return of over 1,400 ancestral remains and over 1,400 sacred objects from within Australian collections, and brought home more than 1,200 ancestral remains to Australia from overseas.38 Other examples include the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act and the National Museum of the American Indian Act in the United States.39 In Canada, the First Nations Sacred Ceremonial Objects Repatriation Act creates a mechanism by which cultural heritage sites and objects can be protected, preserved and repatriated. However, numerous examples throughout the world exist where restitution and repatriation are not respected and enforced. One such example is the recent legal case against indigenous chiefs in Canada, including Bernie Makokis, under the Wildlife Act, after they had offered a sacred headdress as a gift to a non-indigenous guest from the United States. C. Right to cultural revitalization 74. Article 11 of the Declaration states that “indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs”. During the Expert Seminar on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights with Respect to their Cultural Heritage, many presentations highlighted how important the process of cultural revitalization is for the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. Some positive examples of indigenous peoples taking the initiative to revitalize their cultural heritage exist, such as the revitalization of the Maori language, or the use of bilingual education programmes and radio to strengthen and revitalize indigenous languages in Mexico.40 75. The increasing recognition of food production systems and seeds as cultural heritage is another instance of cultural revitalization. In Guatemala, for example, corn is considered intangible cultural heritage due to its historical, cultural, and spiritual value. 41 76. In terms of good practices, the Indigenous Rights Programme of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, in Mexico, has implemented a programme on cultural rights, which supports community-level initiatives to revitalize 36 37 38 39 40 41 18 See the submission from the International Repatriation Project. General Assembly resolution 69/2, para. 27. See the submission from Australia. See the submission from Human Rights Advocates. See the submissions from Cultural Survival and from Mexico. See the submission from Guatemala.