E/CN.4/2002/97 page 25 the going has been more difficult, their organizations may not be officially recognized and their human right to free association may not be completely respected. To the extent that the rights of indigenous peoples themselves are sometimes neglected and ignored within existing power structures, their organizations and other human rights advocacy associations that take up their cause may also become victims of abuses and be denied adequate protection under the law. Numerous communications to this effect have been addressed over the years to, amongst others, OHCHR, the ILO Committee of Experts and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. 86. Beyond respect for their human rights, indigenous organizations also claim the right to political representation qua indigenous peoples at the national level, an issue which may or may not be compatible with existing political structures. More insistent has been the demand for some kind of autonomy, and in a number of countries this has been achieved whereas in others it is not contemplated in current legal arrangements. A case in point is the Constitution of the Philippines which recognizes the right of Muslim and Cordillera peoples to self-determination in the form of autonomy, but the latter are still awaiting the creation of their autonomous region.31 87. One of the more controversial topics surrounding the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples concerns the much-debated right of peoples to self-determination. In their statements to international forums indigenous representatives demand the recognition of their right to self-determination as peoples. Equally insistently, some States argue that such a right should not extend to the indigenous. The concept of self-determination is closely linked to the use of the term “peoples”. There does not appear to be a clear and unequivocal definition of this term in any of the multiple international legal instruments that have been adopted over the last half century nor, for that matter, in national legislation. Without a clear definition that may command a broad consensus, it is not obvious what the debate is really all about. In political science and legal literature the term is usually linked to all the citizens of an existing State, whereas in sociological texts the notion of a “people” refers to certain commonalities, shared identities and identifications. 88. The principle of the right of peoples to self-determination has been present in international debates for almost a century, and the current claims to this right by indigenous organizations is only the latest instance of its use in the expanding debate about human rights. Whereas some national constitutions do indeed refer to the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples (e.g. Mexico’s constitutional reform in August 2001), other legislations avoid it, and the controversy relates to the meaning given to the term in both international and national law. Africa provides another example of conceptual difficulties. In 1981 the Organization of African Unity approved the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and yet nowhere is the term “peoples” defined. Specialists continue to debate whether the term should apply only to all citizens of a given State or whether it has other applications as well (such as indigenous peoples). 89. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that the use of the concept of self-determination has undergone changes over time, and as far as indigenous peoples are concerned, it has generated much controversy and has polarized positions in forums such as the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 and the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001, leading also to unfortunate delays in the adoption of the Draft United Nations declaration by the Commission on Human Rights.