A/HRC/61/49 contours of cultural rights. References to cultural rights violations in monitoring processes are essential. There have been some positive examples from human rights mechanisms, 102 but, unfortunately, many cultural rights violations in conservation remain unmonitored. G. Ensuring that standards for limiting cultural rights are duly respected 61. Not all cultural practices and ways of life are respectful of nature and humans or contribute to their safeguarding. Long-established or more recent practices may have negative impacts on nature conservation and biodiversity.103 Saudi Arabia has, for example, recognized the negative impacts on nature of the deeply rooted cultural practice of illegally hunting wild animals and has taken steps to prevent it. 104 More recent practices linked to, inter alia, human mobility, the consumption of goods and services and the use of digital technologies, which require an extensive use of natural resources, may also need to be questioned. Cultural arguments cannot be invoked to infringe on human rights guaranteed by international law, which includes the right to a healthy environment for all. 62. Cultural practices, whether they emanate from the State, the majority or vulnerable and marginalized sections of the population, have to be compatible with human rights. At times, other interests may prevail, as stated in article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in application of the principles of legality, legitimacy and proportionality. The Human Rights Committee has noted that there must be a reasonable and objective justification for the prevalence of one right over the other, consistency with human rights instruments and a demonstration of the necessity of the restriction. 105 The core of each human right must be protected. In addition, in balancing cultural rights with other human rights or interests, the rights of vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population must take priority, so that substantive equality is achieved. This is of particular importance when balancing the right to development with the cultural rights of a community. It is the duty of States to assess – in an inclusive and non-biased manner – the impact of practices and ways of life on the right to a healthy environment and other human rights and to adopt relevant measures to bring practices into compliance with human rights law. 106 VI. Areas of focus A. Conservation-related evictions 63. There are still many conservation projects that evict communities from their lands, exclude them indefinitely or severely curtail their usage rights. Evictions disrupt societal cohesion, contextualized governance systems and cultural knowledge and practices, break spiritual and territorial connections and weaken the ability to transfer relevant ecological knowledge to future generations. This erodes the identities of communities, hinders them from safeguarding nature and often pushes them into extreme forms of poverty, exclusion and marginalization.107 102 103 104 105 106 107 16 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 39 (2022), paras. 48 and 52; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 25 (2020), para. 39. Submissions from Burundi, El Salvador, Mali, Mexico and Myanmar. See also submission from the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. Submission from Saudi Arabia. See Human Rights Committee, Lovelace v. Canada, communication No. 24/1977; Kitok v. Sweden, communication No. 197/1985; and Länsman et al. v. Finland, communication No. 511/1992; and submission from the Human Rights Commission of Mexico City. For a similar approach to modifying the social and cultural patterns that are harmful to the human rights of women, see Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, art. 5. See submissions from Amnesty International (regarding the highland clearances in Scotland and the enclosures in England) and Minority Rights Group. GE.26-01310