A/HRC/45/35 in villages, and brought out to dance at certain times. A number of kachinas were put up for auction in France in the 2000s. The Hopi asked for the sales to be halted because the kachinas “are considered sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and cannot be transferred, sold, conveyed and removed from the jurisdiction without permission or the free, prior and informed consent of the Hopi Tribe. These facts are pursuant to Hopi customary law and tradition (Hopi Ordinance #26, Hopi Cultural Preservation Code, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act)”.7 The auction houses, claiming the provenance was good and these were items of art under French law, sold the kachinas anyway. 12. Once removed from indigenous peoples, cultural objects and human remains have often been transferred to museums, universities or private collections, displayed as art or artefacts, or studied as specimens. For example, in 1993, the mummified remains of a woman who lived in the fifth century B.C. were found in the Republic of Altai, in the Russian Federation. For 19 years after the discovery, the remains were kept at the scientific institute in Novosibirsk, a decision contested by indigenous peoples in Altai. In 2012, the woman’s remains were returned to Altai and preserved in a mausoleum at the Republican National Museum.8 Nevertheless, in 2014 the Council of Elders of the Republic of Altai claimed that she should be buried. In addition, cemeteries of the Shor and the Khakas peoples in the Russian Federation have been desecrated as a result of coal excavation, and these cases have also not been remedied.9 13. In instances where looted human remains and ceremonial objects were later repatriated to countries of origin, it was often in the “national” interest, instead of to respect indigenous rights. For example, in 2019, when Yale University finally repatriated to Peru 4,849 cultural artefacts and human remains that had been excavated from Machu Picchu in the 1910s, they were declared national cultural heritage.10 Indigenous peoples still living in that community have concerns about Inca human remains associated with the site. 11 14. Indigenous peoples suffer violations of their rights to religion, culture, spirituality, education and traditional knowledge when their cultural items, human remains and intangible cultural heritage are improperly acquired, used and kept by others. The damages incurred include loss of human dignity, difficulty carrying out spiritual practices without the necessary religious items, and the inability to honour their cultural obligations to care for the dead and for ceremonial objects. As Edward Halealoha Ayau, a leading advocate for the repatriation of human remains to Hawaii pointed out, refusal to repatriate human remains leads to spiritual, psychological and intellectual harm, on top of the kaumaha (trauma) caused by the realization that the ancestors were stolen.12 Often, indigenous people who work on repatriation matters experience intergenerational trauma and a heavy emotional burden. Yet they undertake that work because they have customary obligations to their cultures and to facilitate the healing of entire communities.13 15. In the decades that indigenous peoples have sought repatriation of their human remains and ceremonial objects, as well as intangible cultural heritage, they have faced many challenges.14 First, they must locate their items and educate the current possessors about the history of dispossession, as well as their cultural and spiritual significance. They often encounter institutional resistance and legal impediments, including a general lack of knowledge regarding the relevant rights and obligations affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Museums operate pursuant to a duty of care towards their collections that requires retention and preservation. They may also have duties to donors or the public to provide access to these collections. In many instances, experts in the fields of museology, archaeology or anthropology may not have received training on human rights instruments or the contemporary aspirations of indigenous peoples, and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4 Fforde, McKeown and Keeler, The Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation. Gertjan Plets and others, “Repatriation, doxa, and contested heritages: the return of the Altai Princess in an international perspective”, Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 52, No. 2 (2013). Submission from ADC Memorial. See www.gob.pe/institucion/cultura/noticias/68536-ministerio-de-cultura-declara-patrimoniocultural-de-la-nacion-4-mil-849-bienes-culturales-muebles-repatriados-de-la-universidad-de-yale (in Spanish). See www.yachaywasi-ngo.org/tourism.htm. Presentation at the expert seminar. Fforde, McKeown and Keeler, The Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation. United States Supreme Court, Onondaga Nation v. Thacher, 189 U.S. 306 (1903).