A/HRC/57/62 Human Rights Commission indicate that in 2023, the Supreme Court invalidated laws and reforms based on lack of respect for the requirement to consult in some 18 cases. 77 59. At the national level, the Supreme Court of Belize, the Constitutional Court of Colombia and the Constitutional Court of Peru have used the Declaration in some of their decisions.78 A 2007 landmark decision of the Supreme Court Belize recognized that Maya customary land rights constitute property under the Constitution and ordered that Belize recognize and demarcate the collective title of the Maya, while also ceasing any acts that affect or interfere with the use and value of the land. Importantly, in its decision, the Court stated that the Declaration embodies general principles of international law relating to Indigenous Peoples and their lands and resources. The Maya people are now engaged in a long-term struggle to realize the rights set out in the judicial decision, a process that has required them to return to court,79 and to raise awareness during international Indigenous rights forums.80 60. In Guatemala, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in 2016 on the right to intercultural bilingual education of Indigenous Peoples and to guarantee access to bilingual education in 13 schools in the municipality of Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán, Sololá. However, the State’s efforts to comply with the judgment have reportedly not resulted in a guarantee that bilingual education will be provided in the schools listed in the judgment. 81 61. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the structural failures in the State’s response to preventing and remedying the disproportionate impacts of the armed conflict on Indigenous Peoples resulted in an unconstitutional state of affairs. 82 62. In Brazil in 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their traditional lands and rejected a legal argument promoted by some businesses to exploit natural resources on traditional Indigenous lands. The argument put forward was that Indigenous Peoples should not receive title to their ancestral territories if they had not been physically present on them in 1988, when the current Constitution was adopted. The Supreme Court rejected that argument as it went against the constitutional rights of Indigenous Peoples to their ancestral lands.83 63. In Nepal, national courts have acknowledged the Declaration in their decisions. For instance, in a case concerning the rights of the Baram community, the Government of Nepal was ordered to formulate the necessary laws to implement the Constitutional provisions regarding a protected, special and autonomous region for that community in the Gorkha district of Nepal. However, there is no specific judicial decision that requests full implementation of the Declaration.84 64. In New Zealand, the courts have recognized that the Treaty of Waitangi is “of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand”.85 The courts of New Zealand, including the Supreme Court, have drawn on the Declaration in their interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and in support of Māori rights in a range of areas. In 2022, the Supreme Court, in Ellis v. R, concluded that the current place of tikanga (Māori customary law), as a part of the fabric of the law of New Zealand, through legislative and common law recognition, is a manifestation of article 2 of the Treaty. It also highlighted the commitment of New Zealand 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 GE.24-13517 Submission from Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Ciudad de México. See also submission from Mexico (both in Spanish). Felipe Gómez Isa, “The UNDRIP: an increasingly robust legal parameter”, The International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 23, No. 1–2 (2019). Maya Leaders Alliance, “Maya villages sue Government of Belize for failing to protect Indigenous lands”, Cultural Survival, press release, 6 April 2016. Cultural Survival, “Maya Leaders Alliance advocates at United Nations urging respect for rule of law in Belize”, 8 May 2018. Submission from Procurador de los Derechos Humanos de Guatemala (in Spanish). See https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/autos/2017/a266-17.htm (in Spanish). Submission from Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association. Submission from Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) at 516. 13