CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019 Wunna Nyiyaparli. A consequence of that decision is the impossibility for the Wunna Nyiyaparli to keep looking after the culturally important areas on their traditional lands and, more generally, the extinction of their rights to their traditional territory. The impact of such a ruling will be huge, taking into account that the ability of the Wunna Nyiyaparli to live, visit, hunt and fish on their traditional lands is essential to their preservation as a people. Complaint 3.1 The author clarifies that the central purpose of her communication is to find that the State party failed to provide the Wunna Nyiyaparli with an adequate procedure for the determination of their rights to traditional territory, with the implication of multiple violations of their rights under the Covenant, but that it is not to request the Committee to rule on which party has a better claim to native title or to pronounce itself on the absence of consultation in relation to mining projects. 3.2 The author submits that no remedies are available for her to appeal against the consent determination of native title made over the traditional territory of the Wunna Nyiyaparli to another Indigenous group (see para. 2.22 above). The Wunna Nyiyaparli are not entitled to alter this native title consent determination because, according to the Native Title Act, once a determination of native title is made by the Federal Court, an application for its variation or revocation can only be made by the registered native title body, the Commonwealth Minister, the State or Territory Minister or the Native Title Registrar. She alleges that the State party has no constitutional bill of rights or Human Rights Act by which the Wunna Nyiyaparli could have asserted their specific human rights as an Indigenous People. 3.3 The author claims that the State party violated article 27 of the Covenant due to the lack of effective participation by the Wunna Nyiyaparli in the judicial proceedings of determination of lands rights, with a direct consequence of the loss of their traditional territory (attributed to another Indigenous group interesting in mining concessions), which would lead to the dissolution of their own culture – based on their laws and customs held in relation to their traditional lands – and to the destruction of the Wunna Nyiyaparli as such. 3.4 The author argues that, in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an evolutionary interpretation of article 27 of the Covenant should arise from contemporary international human rights norms regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights, considering that Indigenous Peoples’ right to participate in decisions affecting them also applies to proceedings concerning the recognition of rights to traditional territory, which in Australia are judicial proceedings. The author recalls that the Wunna Nyiyaparli could not properly understand the issue of the separate question, having not been properly consulted about it and not having been able to provide their free, prior and informed consent to its specific wording. 3.5 The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 23 (1994), 8 previous jurisprudence of the Committee 9 and regional human rights jurisprudence that serves to interpret international human rights. She refers in particular to the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the case Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, in which the Inter-American Commission found multiple violations in relation to the allegations of the victims – members of the Western Shoshone Indigenous People of the State of Nevada – according to which the State had interfered with their use and occupation of their ancestral lands by purporting to have appropriated those lands as federal property through an unfair procedure before the Indian Claims Commission. The Inter-American Commission observed in particular that the Indian Claims Commission process was not sufficient in order for the State to fulfil its particular obligation to ensure that the status of the Western Shoshone traditional lands had been determined through a process of informed and mutual consent on the part of the Western Shoshone people. 10 According to the author, the decision of the Inter-American Commission confirms that the correct view of the scope of article 27 is the requirement in general comment No. 23 (1994) that Indigenous Peoples may effectively 8 9 10 6 Paras. 3.2 and 7. Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984); and Poma Poma v. Peru (CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006). Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, Case No. 11.140, Report 75/02, 27 December 2002, para. 141. GE.23-13390