E/CN.4/2002/97 page 27 Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission, in his study on treaties.33 In these countries, the human rights situation of indigenous peoples derives in great measure from these treaties and their consequences. 95. Of special interest is the situation in Africa. In his report to the Sub-Commission over a decade ago, Special Rapporteur Martínez Cobo wrote that he had “always considered that certain population groups in several African countries or regions should be considered as indigenous ...” but in his report he does not refer to African countries because it was difficult at that time to obtain information.34 96. At the Arusha Seminar on multiculturalism in Africa, participants “… recommended that African States recognize all indigenous and minority peoples. This should include recognition in the Constitution of the dignity and diversity of peoples within the State. Recognition of indigenous or minority identity was considered a first step in the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities”.35 At the same time, the participants noticed that some African States reject the notion of “indigenous people” because it might lead to an upsurge of “tribalism” and threaten the unity of the State. An earlier International Conference on Indigenous Peoples in East, Central and Southern Africa, also held in Arusha, in 1999, addressed the right to land, education, natural resources and the rights of indigenous women.36 In October 2000, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, at its twenty-eighth session held in Banjul, adopted a resolution whereby it established an expert working group on the rights of indigenous or ethnic communities in Africa which is to examine the concept of indigenous peoples and communities in Africa, study the implications of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights for the well-being of indigenous communities, and suggest appropriate recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of indigenous communities.37 The working group takes the view that there are indigenous people in Africa, based on the principle of self-identification as expressed in Convention 169.38 97. The States of Asia also present different approaches. Some scholars consider the various “tribal” categories used in some countries as equivalent to the concept of indigenous peoples, whereas other observers deny this identification. When judged by their attendance at the annual meetings of the WGIP, it is clear that numerous tribal peoples identify themselves as indigenous and are so considered by other indigenous organizations. In contrast, no such definitional problems arise concerning indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia or the Russian Federation where a long-standing legal tradition provides clear guidelines regarding the definition of groups and criteria for membership therein. 98. For instance, the Government of Japan in 1987 recognized the Ainu as a minority, and in its third periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1991 (CCPR/C/70/Add.1 and Corr.1 and 2), stated that the Ainu “may be called a minority”. This has been interpreted as a policy of progressive “minorization” of the Ainu, to be dealt with within the framework of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Japanese Diet in May 1997 approved the Ainu Culture Law, which recognizes the Ainu as “an indigenous and small-numbered people”. Also in 1997 the Sapporo District Court, in a