A/HRC/45/38 D. Land claims tribunals 51. The Uncultivated Land Tribunal for Finnmark and the Finnmark Commission were set up in Norway under the Finnmark Act of 2005, with the purpose of facilitating the management of land and natural resources for the benefit of the inhabitants of Finnmark and as a foundation for Sami culture.124 While the Finnmark Act recognized that the Sami people had acquired collective and individual rights in Finnmark through the long-term use of land and resources, it has been criticized for failing to recognize distinctive Sami customary laws and rights.125 52. The Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand has been recognized by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples as being one of the most important examples in the world of an effort to address historical and ongoing grievances of indigenous peoples.126 Although the Tribunal cannot issue binding rulings, and has other shortcomings, its decisions are “accorded considerable weight and respect by the ordinary courts”.127 In the United States of America, the historic Indian Claims Commission left a mixed legacy because of its decision to award only monetary restitution rather than the restoration of actual lands. In Canada, the Specific Claims Tribunal was developed jointly by the Government and the Assembly of First Nations to address historic grievances, with binding rulings, as part of the Specific Claims Policy. 128 E. Enforcement and adjudication of legal title, including through the national courts 53. In the absence of effective adjudication processes under article 27 of the Declaration, some indigenous peoples refer their request for title to the national courts. In Indonesia, in three landmark Constitutional Court rulings, indigenous peoples’ collective rights to their territories have been recognized.129 In Botswana, in 2006, the draft Declaration was cited to rule in favour of the Basarwa (San) peoples, who had been evicted from their ancestral lands.130 In New Zealand, in Ngati Apa v. Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal ruled that the onus of proof of extinguishment of customary title was on the Crown, and that the intent to extinguish would have to be “clear and plain”.131 54. In Sweden, the Supreme Court granted a Sami association the sole right to manage small-game hunting on land owned by the State. 132 In Norway, the Supreme Court decided, pursuant to the Reindeer Husbandry Act of 2007, that the assessment of property rights must take into account Sami traditions.133 In Finland, Sami defendants who challenged the Fishing Act, by fishing in their seas without a licence, were acquitted, as the Court determined that they were fishing according to their customary law. The judicial decision referenced articles 8, 14, 20, 26, 34, 40 and 43 of the Declaration. In January 2020, a court in Peru requested the State to establish a strict protection zone around a region of the Amazon near the border with Brazil to protect indigenous people in voluntary isolation against encroachment by oil companies. 134 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 16 Submission by Norway. A/HRC/WG.6/33/NOR/2 and A/HRC/33/42/Add.3. A/HRC/18/35/Add.4, para. 67. Janine Hayward and Nicola Wheen, eds., The Waitangi Tribunal: Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi (Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 2015). Submission by Canada. Submission by the International Coalition for Papua. A/HRC/36/56. www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2003/117.html. Ulf Mörkenstam, “Organised hypocrisy? The implementation of the international indigenous rights regime in Sweden”, International Journal of Human Rights (June 2019). Norway, Supreme Court, decisions No. HR-2016-2030-A of 28 September 2016 and No. HR-2018456-P of 9 March 2018. Submission by Norway. Sentence No. -2019-1°JCM-CSJLO-JAVT of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Loreto, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AVTl6jVrw3Mkx5T3BuNTMI5fvRJhgz9J/view.