A/77/514 on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) –– a universally accepted soft-law instrument developed in consultation with indigenous peoples to articulate their rights, including spiritual practices. Article 12 UNDRIP protects access to and maintenance of religious and cultural sites, ceremonial objects, and repatriation, while Article 25 recognizes their spiritual relationship to traditional lands. Aspects of indigenous spirituality reportedly appear elsewhere in UNDRIP, resulting in mutually reinforcing protection.27 Many actors worldwide—including States, regional and domestic courts, scholars, and rights-holders— employ UNDRIP to interpret ICCPR vis-à-vis, indigenous peoples.28 16. Several experts observe that Article 18 of the UDHR was shaped mainly by debates between Islamic and Protestant Christian groups. At the same time, the diplomatic push for expanding protections for both “religion or belief" foregrounded the rights of atheists in Soviet states.29 Indigenous spirituality, they argue, was generally overlooked and poorly understood within this framework, and "primacy and relative longevity of the 'freedom of religion or belief' umbrella has all but sidelined competing rights conceptions regarding religion."30 17. Articles 18 and 27 of the ICCPR protect the right to manifest religion or belief "individually or in community with others," as well as minorities' right to practice their faith.31 Yet some experts wonder whether international human rights law fully protects indigenous peoples' collective rights or spirituality when narrowly interpreted. As the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights ("IACtHR") observes, indigenous peoples' relationship with traditional land is not merely about "possession and production but [has] a material and spiritual element" that they must enjoy to preserve culture.32 Indigenous spirituality encompasses diverse beliefs and traditions. Many describe their relationship with nature as "balanced" or "cyclical," embracing places, phenomena, flora, and fauna as sacred and emphasizing respect for nature and other humans. Others practice animism or ancestor worship; maintain ceremonial or burial sites; and consider hunting and using other resources sustainably as part of their spiritual customs. 18. While "sacred sites" in the 1981 Declaration (i.e., freedom "to establish and maintain places of worship")33 seemingly apply to manufactured structures, experts argue that protections must also extend to traditional lands that are integral to indigenous spirituality.34 Yet several States allegedly fail to protect believers of indigenous spirituality equally, often dismissing legal claims invoking the right to freedom of religion or belief as justification for protecting indigenous peoples' access and use of traditional lands. The Canadian Supreme Court, for example, authorized the building of a ski resort in the mountains considered sacred since the "state's duty … is not to protect the object of beliefs."35 Some US courts have ruled that commercial use of traditional lands would not "coerce" indigenous peoples to act contrary to their religious beliefs,36 and the State could use federal lands anyway "even if [it] makes [their] worship [...] 'impossible.'" 37 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 6 https://brill.com/view/title/34582,(pp.54,70-71); https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2018.1562916,(p.26). E.g. Federal UNDRIP Act 2021; ACommHPR v. Kenya,(paras.209-211); Cal v. AG; https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199673223.001.0001/law-9780199673223-chapter11,(p.290). https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religious-liberty-and-international-law-ineurope/1D2BBECB3F7DD49D610EDF4C40D43BCA,(p.204). https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/indigenous-religious-freedom-between-individualand-communal-human-rights. ICCPR, art.27. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua,(para.149). A/HRC/RES/6/37,(para.9(g)). Also A/RES/36/55,(art.6(a)); CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4,(para.4); https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-religion-or-belief/international-standards#6. Submission-First Peoples Law LLP. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-480695_2,(pp.19-21); https://www.jstor.org/stable/23919704#metadata_info_tab_contents,(pp.144-45). Ktunaxa Nation v BC,(para.71). E.g. Lyng v Northwest Indian Cemetery,(paras.18,26); Navajo Nation v US,(p.1070). Apache Stronghold v US.