A/71/229 Principles on Internal Displacement emphasize that States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples and other groups with a special dependency on and attachment to their lands (principle 9). Due to the special relationship that indigenous peoples have with their land and the profound impact forced displacement has on their survival, human rights treaty bodies have consistently expressed concerns over the forcible displacement of indigenous peoples and urged States to provide reparation, with emphasis on the obligation to provide restitution of their original lands. 16 Reparation measures should be provided in accordance with international standards and, where appropriate, should entail elements of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-recurrence. 17 26. ILO Convention No. 169 (article 16) and the Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples (article 10) stipulate that indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands unless they have provided their free, prior and informed consent. Should such violations have occurred, they have the right to fair reparation including restitution and compensation and, where possible, the option of returning to their lands. Article 28 of the Declaration furthermore stresses the right of indigenous peoples to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress. D. Regional human rights systems 27. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, with particular reference to property rights (article 21) of the American Convention on Human Rights, have provided key jurisprudence on the rights of indigenous peoples to communal lands, including in the context of protected areas. The Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2001 set an important precedent as it was the first binding judgment, confirming that indigenous communal land rights arise by virtue of traditional occupation despite the lack of official legal title. 18 The Court has furthermore held that indigenous peoples maintain their property rights even when they have been forced to leave or have otherwise lost possession of their traditional lands, including where their lands have been expropriated or transferred to third parties, unless this was done consensually and in good faith. 19 __________________ 16 17 18 19 16-13163 See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 23; see also CERD/C/BWA/CO/16 and CERD/C/NAM/CO/12, discussed in Fergus MacKay, “Addressing past wrongs: indigenous peoples and protected areas — the right to restitution of lands and resources”, Forest Peoples Programme Occasional Paper, 2002. See General Assembly resolution 60/147, see also CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 2004, para.16. Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, ser. C, No. 79. Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment, 17 June 2005, ser. C, No. 125; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of 29 March 2006. Series C No. 146. 11/25