CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 that the amendments of 2019 replaced the 1951 cut-off date with the 1985 cut-off date. The Committee is of the view that the cut-off rules established by the State party affect in a discriminatory manner the descendants of indigenous women who had been disenfranchised in comparison with the descendants of status Indian men who, because they traced their descent from the male line, were never affected by the disenfranchisements of the past. As noted by Human Rights Watch, the latter cut -off rule was discriminatory to people whose parents from an indigen ous maternal lineage were married after 1985 (see para. 15.4 b above). In the present case, the discriminatory treatment of the author’s grandmother was based on gender, as acknowledged by the State party. Considering that that is the basis of the ongoing effects on the author and his children, namely, the lack of full recognition as indigenous by the State party, thereby affecting their right to freely transmit that status and their cultural identity, the Committee concludes that, even if not currently bas ed on the gender of the descendants themselves, but on dates of birth or marriage, the Indian Act perpetuates in practice the differential treatment of descendants of previously disenfranchised indigenous women, which constitutes transgenerational discrimination, falling within the scope and meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 18.4 The Committee considers that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, indigenous peoples do have the fundamental right to be recognized as such, as a consequence of the fundamental self-identification criterion established in international law. Article 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Canada, affirms that indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. 18 It is essential to combating and preventing forced assimilation; indeed, according to article 8 of the Declaration, indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture, and, as a consequence, States must provide effective mechanisms for the prevention of, and redress for, any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities. Moreover, the Committee observes that, according to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the identification of an indigenous community, from its name to its membership, is a social and historical fact that is part of its autonomy, and therefore States must restrict themselves to respecting the corresponding decision made by the community, i.e., the way in which it identifies itself. 19 In the present communication, the Committee considers that the unequal criteria by which men and women are permitted, according to the State party, to transmit their indigenous identity to their descendants, is an element which is precisely contrary to this fundamental right to self-identification. Articles 2 and 3 18.5 The author alleges that the 1985 cut-off date introduced in the amendments of 2019 is as arbitrary as the previous 1951 cut-off date, because it still displaces or disentitles indigenous women’s descendants from registration. Indeed, the long standing distinction between the status afforded to descendants of the paternal line, compared with those of the maternal line, which has contributed to the stigmatization of matrilineal descendants, is still present in the most recent version of the Indian Act. The author submits that the reforms were carried out without adequate consultation with indigenous peoples and that the State party ignored the views of indigenous __________________ 18 19 16/19 See also International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), art. 1 (2); and CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, para. 6 (a). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, judgment of 24 August 2010, para. 37. See also Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, judgment of 28 November 2007, Series C, No. 172, para. 164. 22-03658