A/HRC/24/50 87. Examples of the latter include the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and, in the United States, the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Canadian Commission, led by indigenous peoples, is examining State-sponsored institutional harm done to indigenous children and their families over 150 years, perhaps the longest duration examined by a truth commission. The Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission is working to document what happened to Wabanaki children in the State child welfare system; to give Wabanaki people an opportunity to share their experiences and begin the healing process; and to issue a report that includes recommendations on best child welfare practice for Wabanaki children and families. 88. There are numerous instances in which truth commissions have addressed, though not focused specifically on, the violation of rights experienced by indigenous peoples, including in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Nigeria, Paraguay and Peru, among others. In the case of the Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification, in operation from 1997 to 1999, given the magnitude of the sufferings experienced by Mayan peoples as a result of the internal armed conflict between 1960 and 1996, the Commission’s work ultimately focused considerably on their situation, describing the State as having committed acts of genocide against indigenous peoples. 89. In many cases, however, truth commissions have failed to address the needs of indigenous peoples in any significant ways. In such instances, indigenous peoples are completely ignored, excluded from the narrative created and not consulted or included as participants. C. Challenges to truth-seeking to address injustices experienced by indigenous peoples 90. Challenges faced by truth commissions include ensuring the independence and credibility of the commission; political interference; inadequate funding; and ensuring continued participation of marginalized groups, civil society and victims’ organizations. 91. Truth commissions have also been criticized for weak outcomes, and lack of implementation of their recommendations or adequate follow-up. Implementation of these recommendations has generally been weak even where recommendations are strong. For example, the strong recommendations of the Commission for Historical Clarification have not been duly implemented, resulting in a “truth that is not embraced as a truth”.97 In the case of the Waitangi Tribunal of Aotearoa/New Zealand, criticisms, including by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, included that the Government had rejected its findings in some significant cases.98 92. Lack of implementation demonstrates a wider problem, related not to the final outcome or report of a Commission, but rather inadequacies in the process leading up to it and the process of engagement. Ultimately, truth commissions will not lead to recognition of indigenous peoples’ self-determination or transform a country by themselves. However, the processes around them, including the building of platforms, can have transformative potential. For this reason, while the quality of the recommendations of truth commissions is important, it is insufficient. To be implemented, truth commissions need to be part of a larger political process that builds alliances and consensus.99 97 98 99 20 Seminar on access to justice: Alvaro Pop. Report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to New Zealand (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3), para. 26. Seminar on access to justice: Eduardo González.