PART THREE: PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS the authorities’ failure to provide basic services or to guarantee legal security of tenure for residents in settlements reflect a stigmatization of and discrimination against Roma”.1085 As a result, the Special Rapporteur commented: PART THREE In April 2012, the previous mandate holder issued an urgent appeal with regard to the eviction of approximately 240 households, mainly Roma, from the Belvil settlement in Belgrade. Although they were relocated to four settlements in the outskirts of the city, the living conditions in the temporary resettlement sites (known as “container settlements”) failed to meet international standards, the location of the sites was not ideal, no access was given to public services, and residents had not been adequately consulted or provided with information. In its reply to the appeal, the Government pointed out that consultations had indeed been held, families had agreed to an allocation of mobile housing units with the Secretariat for Social Welfare, and that voluntary relocation from the settlement had been conducted without recourse to force. … The Special Rapporteur points out that, even at the time of resettlement, the temporary arrangements were not compliant with the obligation to ensure adequate housing. The fact that residents continue to inhabit temporary housing more than three years later renders the situation even more problematic, and cannot be regarded as acceptable under international human rights law.1086 VI. RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES As noted above, while indigenous peoples are recognized by the Human Rights Committee as falling within the ambit of the provision on minority rights in article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the adoption in 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets indigenous peoples apart from other minorities as a result of the considerably strengthened rights recognized in the Declaration. The Human Rights Committee has subsequently recognized the Declaration as demonstrative of indigenous rights, referencing the Declaration in its analysis of indigenous rights and interpreting article 27 of the Covenant in the light of the Declaration itself.1087 The rights protected by the Declaration include collective rights to self-determination (art. 3); autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions (art. 4); land rights (noted below); and free, prior and informed consent as “a manifestation of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determine their political, social, economic and cultural priorities” (arts. 10–11, 19, 28–29 and 32).1088 These provisions have no analogues in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has noted that, under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the rights of indigenous peoples are both collective and individual: Indigenous peoples have the right to enjoy, as a collective and as individuals, all of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed in international human rights instruments, equally with all other peoples and individuals. Respect for indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their customary land tenure systems necessitates recognition of their collective ownership of lands, territories and resources. … The institution of individual, as opposed to collective, land rights and the vesting of power over lands customarily owned by indigenous peoples in the State undermine these systems.1089 1085 A/HRC/31/54/Add.2, para. 44. 1086 Ibid., paras. 45–46. 1087 Human Rights Committee, Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015); and Käkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/124/D/2950/2017). 1088 A/HRC/39/62, para. 14. 1089 A/HRC/45/38, paras. 6–7. 161