CASE STUDIES • • • • context of Article 13 of Convention No. 107 on land rights,65 also raised the issue of : ‘the massive influx of non-tribal settlers in the Chittagong Hill Tracts over a number of years and of numerous reports … [of] violence and extortion in order to encroach upon land owned by members of the tribal population’. This increased ILO attention on the CHT issue and in 1988 there was another Direct Contacts visit to Bangladesh reporting that no tangible progress had been made by the Government in resolving the situation in the CHT. In 1989, the Applications Committee again had detailed discussions with the Government reiterating that further steps must be taken, including: the effective examination of violations of human rights, the recognition and demarcation of land rights, and the settlement of disputes between the indigenous peoples and the settlers. The situation in the CHT remained under review by the Committee of Experts and received Observations practically every year between 1990 and 1998. In reviewing the situation in the CHT, the Committee considered information supplied by the Government as well as information received from indigenous organizations, NGOs (Anti-Slavery International, IWGIA, Minority Rights Group International and Survival International) and UN bodies. This helped to keep the CHT issue under public scrutiny. In 1997 a peace accord was signed between the indigenous peoples and the Government of Bangladesh. The CHT issue remains under review, and recent comments of the Committee of Experts have focused on the implementation of the peace accord, in the context of continuing reports of violence. Other issues raised by the Committee centred on human rights violations, land rights and the repatriation of refugees, focusing attention on the need to resolve the continuing problems in the CHT.66 • • • • 4. Mexico he following is an illustration of how Convention No. 169 is monitored, and how workers’ organizations can cooperate with indigenous organizations in bringing complaints before the ILO. • During the violent uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, the Government of Mexico was asked to appear before the Applications Committee in June 1995. In its 1996 Observation, the Committee of Experts followed up on the Recommendation of the Applications Committee to consider ILO technical assistance ‘in order to increase basic protection of indigenous workers’ T 38 • • rights and to improve working conditions’.67 On 16 February 1996, the Government of Mexico and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) signed a peace accord in San Andrés as part of the peace process in Chiapas. The Convention was used as a point of reference in the negotiations.68 In 1997, the Committee of Experts continued its scrutiny of the situation in Mexico and commented on: (i) the nationwide process of consultation on the rights and participation of indigenous peoples, which resulted in a Recommendation to more fully align national legislation with the Convention; (ii) comments from the Authentic Labour Front (Frente Auténtico del Trabajo) ‘alleging violation of the Convention due to conflicts associated with the construction of a hydroelectric dam in Oaxaca’; and (iii) the issue of exploitation of indigenous workers by the practice of enganche (a form of coercive recruitment). The Committee also reiterated the offer of ILO technical assistance.69 In January 1997, an Article 24 representation was brought against the Government by the National Trade Union of Education Workers (SNTE), Radio Education, alleging non-observance of Convention No. 169. It was brought by the trade union on behalf of the Union of Huichol Indigenous Communities of Jalisco regarding their historical claim to their traditional lands. The representation was accepted, and a tripartite committee established to examine the case. In June 1998, the Governing Body adopted this committee’s report, which found that the Government had not fulfilled its obligations to safeguard the rights of the Huichol to lands that they have traditionally occupied. It recommended that the Government should provide effective protection of the Huichol’s rights of ownership and possession as required under Article 14 of the Convention; and that it should take special measures to safeguard their existence and way of life, including the allocation of sufficient land to the Huichol ‘to provide the essentials of a normal existence or for any possible increase in their numbers, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention …’.70 In 1999, the Committee of Experts asked the Government what steps it had taken to implement the Recommendations of the tripartite committee.71 In 1998, another Article 24 representation was brought against the Government by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Similar Workers alleging nonobservance of Convention No. 169, with particular reference to its land rights provisions. This representation was about the construction of the Cerro del Oro dam in San Lucas Ojitlán, Oaxaca, and involved the THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION: A HANDBOOK FOR MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES