A/HRC/45/38 55. The challenges brought forward in these and other such cases are many, depending on the State and the level of recognition of indigenous peoples and their land rights. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while draft laws on the rights of indigenous peoples have been before Parliament since 2014, indigenous peoples are considered to be like other communities, contributing to conflict over land and other resources. 135 56. In some States, indigenous peoples have difficulty accessing the court system and sometimes do not have the level of social and political organization necessary to take cases to court.136 Court procedures are often complex, the independence of the judiciary is not always guaranteed and legal professionals, including those representing indigenous peoples, are often unaware of indigenous peoples’ land rights. While there are few indigenous judges, 137 there are often onerous burdens of proof 138 and sometimes inconsistencies between federal and state courts. Even positive decisions may be accompanied by negative effects on indigenous peoples. In Brazil, the recognition of indigenous land rights in Raposa Serra do Sol resulted in attempts to restrict the ability of public lawyers to defend indigenous peoples’ right to land (see opinion No. 001/2017 of the Federal Attorney General, later suspended by a Supreme Court decision in the Xokleng indigenous community case).139 57. Taking cases to court may also involve a risk to indigenous peoples and their defenders. Many suffer reprisals, intimidation, harassment and arrest. 140 Litigation takes a toll on indigenous peoples across the regions, both emotionally and financially. Often there is no legal aid and the costs are prohibitive, as noted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a case against Canada. 141 And even if a case is won in court, there may be a failure to implement the judgment, as in the Ogiek case in Kenya. 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Submission by Institut de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles. See also CEDAW/C/COD/CO/8, CCPR/C/COD/CO/4 and www.iwgia.org/en/democratic-republic-ofcongo/3500-iw2019-drc. Submission by the International Coalition for Papua. See also A/HRC/42/37 and A/72/186, para. 57. Submission by Institut de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles. Guyana, High Court, Thomas and Arau Village Council v. Attorney General of Guyana and another, unreported decision dated 30 April 2009, in Amy Strecker, “Indigenous land rights and Caribbean reparations discourse”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 30, No. 3 (September 2017), p. 639. See https://cimi.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/aco1100-decisao-parecer001.pdf and http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=11818. A/HRC/39/62 and A/HRC/39/17. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, report No. 105/09 on the admissibility of petition 592-07 concerning the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, Canada (30 October 2009), para. 37. 17