CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 Guarani agroecology, thus leading to the loss of traditional knowledge. Secondly, the ceremonial aspects of baptism (mitãkarai) are no longer practised owing to the disappearance of the materials from the forest needed to build the dance houses (jerokyha), of the avati para variety of corn with which they made the liquor (kagüi) that constitutes a fundamental sacred ritual in the ceremony and of the wax used to make the ceremonial candles due to the mass extinction of forest bees (jateí). The loss of this ceremony has left children without a rite crucial to strengthening their cultural identity, and the last religious leaders (oporaiva) have been left without apprentices, which threatens the preservation of the community’s cultural identity. Thirdly, the community structure is being eroded as families are forced to leave the community. The authors specify that they, in their capacity as leader and teacher, have a personal responsibility towards the community to ensure the intergenerational transmission of the culture. The Committee further notes the State party’s assertion that, while its domestic legislation recognizes collective rights, article 27 of the Covenant does not, and that the authors have not demonstrated having been affected personally. 8.6 The Committee recalls that, in the case of indigenous peoples, the enjoyment of culture may relate to a way of life which is closely associated with territory and the use of its resources, including such traditional activities as fishing or hunting. Thus, the protection of this right is directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural identity.43 As also stated by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the strong communal dimension of indigenous peoples’ cultural life is indispensable to their existence, well-being and full development, and includes the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 44 Therefore, “indigenous peoples’ cultural values and rights associated with their ancestral lands and their relationship with nature should be regarded with respect and protected, in order to prevent the degradation of their particular way of life, including their means of subsistence, the loss of their natural resources and, ultimately, their cultural identity”. 45 Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee notes that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has stated that the close ties of indigenous peoples to the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, spiritual life, integrity and economic survival. Their relations to the land are a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations and are, therefore, a prerequisite to “prevent their extinction as a people”.46 The Committee finds that article 27, interpreted in the light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, enshrines the inalienable right of indigenous peoples to enjoy the territories and natural resources that they have traditionally used for their subsistence and cultural identity. 8.7 The Committee also recalls that measures should be taken to ensure that indigenous peoples can effectively participate in decisions of concern to them.47 Specifically, it is of vital importance that measures that compromise or interfere with the culturally significant economic activities of an indigenous community are taken with the free, prior and informed consent of the members of the community and respect the principle of proportionality so as not to endanger the very survival of the community.48 In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party’s legislation safeguards the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted about activities that may affect their territories.49 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 GE.22-15010 General comment No. 23 (1994), paras. 3.2, 7 and 9; Poma Poma v. Peru, para. 7.2, and CCPR/C/PRY/CO/4, paras. 44–45. General comment No. 21 (2009), para. 36; and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 26 (1). General comment No. 21 (2009), para. 36; and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, arts. 20 and 33. Ågren et al. v. Sweden (CERD/C/102/D/54/2013), para. 6.6, citing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 149, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, judgment of 28 November 2007, para. 121. General comment No. 23 (1994), para. 7; Poma Poma v. Peru, para. 7.2; and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 32. Poma Poma v. Peru, para. 7.6; and Ågren et al. v. Sweden, para. 6.7. Decree No. 1039/18. 13