A/HRC/39/68 61. The panellists were invited to focus on access to justice for indigenous peoples as well as implementation and monitoring of consultation and free, prior and informed consent. Panel members identified challenges in relation to their work, which were mainly related to the reluctance of States to implement the Declaration, and raised the need for establishing monitoring mechanisms. In that regard, the Expert Mechanism had the potential to foster dialogue at a national level and engage in capacity-building for the implementation of the Declaration. 62. Ms. Chivusia presented the work of her commission, which focused on human rights advocacy, technical training, education, public information and research in Kenya. She particularly highlighted the mission of receiving, investigating and processing complaints from indigenous peoples and evoked positive outcomes achieved in specific cases of land eviction and political representation of indigenous peoples. She expressed the desire to fully engage with the Expert Mechanism in identifying, highlighting and developing responses to human rights challenges currently faced by indigenous peoples. 63. Mr. Robbek presented the mandate of the Ombudsman for small-numbered indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation, including the procedures for his appointment. He explained that his group was an independent working body tackling pressing issues affecting indigenous peoples on a daily basis, including processing of complaints, and playing a positive role in enhancing legislation and promotion of human rights and standards. He indicated his wish to see more such groups being formed in other countries, taking their inspiration from good practices observed in the Russian Federation. Mr. Robbek underlined that he worked not only with small-numbered indigenous peoples but also with larger groups. 64. Ms. Pimentel-Gana outlined the current legal mechanisms available for indigenous peoples and stressed the need for monitoring tools while raising concerns about the recurring problems faced by indigenous communities in the Philippines. An evolving positive step was a future three-level partnership between governmental agencies, civil society and indigenous peoples, which would foster a culture of monitoring and evaluation and provide a forum for dialogue. 65. Mr. Hernández outlined the work of the Commission concerning consultation and free, prior and informed consent and stressed the challenge of implementation in a context of increasing extractive industry projects affecting indigenous communities in the Americas. He underlined the existing difference of jurisprudence on consultation and consent in the inter-American system and mentioned the increasingly high threshold regarding the proportionality principle, as reflected in the study of the Expert Mechanism. 66. Ms. Herrera Castro noted recent legislative progress in regard to access to justice in Costa Rica. Priority attention was being given to indigenous peoples, including arrangements to provide translators and interpreters in native languages. However, implementation was still the main challenge. Moreover, she highlighted the importance of the creation of a consultation mechanism and recalled the active role played by the ombudspersons in urging the State to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples conferred by international instruments were respected in practice. 67. Ms. Yamada acknowledged that implementation remained the major difficulty and reminded participants that the Expert Mechanism could provide Member States seeking assistance and advice with implementing the recommendations from the universal periodic review, treaty bodies, special procedures and other relevant mechanisms. She emphasized the importance of national human rights institutions in the process of monitoring compliance with those recommendations. 68. Representatives of the participating national human rights institutions all stated their wish for a more significant and concrete engagement with the Expert Mechanism in the near future, especially given that new methods of work had been adopted in the light of the new mandate. They also underlined that since free, prior and informed consent was an important principle in the work of their institutions, they would look into the Expert Mechanism’s study on that theme. Both panellists and members of the Expert Mechanism, referring to the draft discussion paper, reiterated their wish to generate further spaces for cooperation. Representatives of national human rights institutions asked the Expert 12