A/HRC/15/37 set out in the relevant international instruments (Declaration, arts. 20.2, 32.3; ILO Convention No. 169, art. 15.2). 75. As may be clearly deduced from international standards, compensation must be aimed at repairing all possible adverse impacts of corporate activity on the daily life of indigenous peoples, including not only the impact on their environment or productive capacity, but also the impact on the social, cultural and spiritual aspects of their life. The practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights offers in that regard a series of highly pertinent examples of compensation and reparation in cases of damage to indigenous peoples’ social and cultural practices.56 5. Benefit sharing 76. Aside from their entitlement to compensation for damages, indigenous peoples have the right to share in the benefits arising from activities taking place on their traditional territories, especially in relation to natural resource exploitation. The duty to establish benefit sharing mechanisms for peoples affected by such activities is set out explicitly in article 15.2 of ILO Convention No. 169 and has been reiterated by, inter alia, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights57 and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).58 77. Indigenous peoples’ right to share in the benefits arising from activities affecting their traditional territories reflects the broad international recognition of the right to indigenous communal ownership, which includes recognition of rights relating to the use, administration and conservation of the natural resources existing in indigenous territories, independent of private or State ownership of those resources59 In that regard, the previous Special Rapporteur has observed that “mutually acceptable benefit sharing” is a means of guaranteeing the human rights of indigenous peoples “in relation to major development projects”.60 Likewise, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that benefit sharing is one of the guarantees required in any case involving limitations on the rights of indigenous communal ownership; benefit sharing must be understood as equivalent to the right to fair compensation for limitation or deprivation of property, as recognized in various international instruments. 78. There is no specific international rule that guarantees benefit sharing for indigenous peoples, aside from the consideration that such sharing must be “fair and equitable”.61 Domestic law still presents serious limitations in this sphere. States rarely guarantee a share in the benefits arising from natural resource exploitation, and when such benefit sharing is established by law, a distinction is usually not made between the local population and indigenous communities per se. Moreover, the share in project-generated benefits is often trivial in comparison with the company’s share, and there are often no clear and transparent criteria for apportioning such benefits. 79. When domestic law offers limited responses to this question, or no responses at all, due diligence with respect to indigenous rights may require companies to set up specific benefit-sharing mechanisms, based on international standards. It should be kept in mind 56 57 58 59 60 61 GE.10-15075 See, in particular, Masacre de Paz de Sánchez v. Guatemala, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 116 (2004). Loc. cit. (footnote 54 above). CERD/C/ECU/CO/19, para. 16. See United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, arts. 25 and 26 (1); and ILO Convention No. 169, art. 15 (1). E/CN.4/2003/90, para. 66. Loc. cit. (footnote 54 above), paras. 133, 134 and 140. 17