A/HRC/51/28/Add.1 and approach taken to processes relating to the indigenous peoples demonstrate respect for their practices, knowledge and world views. This has been a positive step towards inclusion and democracy, which are necessary in order for the country to lay the foundations required to reduce structural problems. 18. The cancellation of the Costa Rican Electrical Institute’s El Diquís hydroelectric project, for administrative reasons, represented a first step by State-owned enterprises towards showing leadership as regards respect for indigenous peoples’ human rights. Nevertheless, further progress needs to be made in implementing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework to ensure that the State protects human rights and that companies, including State-owned companies, respect those rights, along with human rights due diligence processes and the right of access to effective redress mechanisms for human rights abuses relating to business activity. IV. Key challenges pending A. Self-determination, self-government and participation 19. The Indigenous Act (Act No. 6172) recognizes that indigenous peoples have full legal capacity (art. 2) and establishes that indigenous territories must be governed by indigenous peoples according to traditional community-based structures or the laws of the Republic governing them (art. 4). However, the councils and authorities recognized by the indigenous peoples themselves, under their own law and within indigenous territories, are not currently recognized as having legal personality. 20. The Special Rapporteur points out that legal recognition of the indigenous peoples’ own authorities was hampered by the enactment of Executive Decree No. 8487 of 10 May 1978, which established, without the consent of the indigenous peoples, comprehensive development associations and imposed them as the sole form of governance within the 24 indigenous territories. 21. The Special Rapporteur received repeated claims that the comprehensive development associations, as imposed State institutions that report to the executive branch, are not suited to guaranteeing representation for indigenous peoples, which have their own system of government. The Special Rapporteur also received information from representatives of indigenous peoples, civil society and State institutions emphasizing that the comprehensive development associations were unsuitable as a system to allow indigenous peoples to exercise their right to self-government, since they are not, as public-interest entities, designed to hold major powers, such as that of governing a people.5 22. According to the relevant judicial decision, the comprehensive development associations are the indigenous peoples’ official representatives, meaning that any initiative or project by official or private persons or bodies must be handled by them. 6 The attribution of powers to institutions that do not represent the indigenous peoples has given rise to abuses and violations of indigenous peoples’ collective and individual rights. Of particular concern are reports of non-indigenous persons participating in the institutions; the failure to apply indigenous peoples’ internal laws when electing their representatives; the improper use of these laws either to appoint only supporters to or to expel opponents from comprehensive development associations; the inequitable redistribution of State funds allocated to indigenous peoples; and indigenous peoples’ exclusion from the processes of devising and implementing projects in the 24 territories. The Special Rapporteur also received accounts of instances of lands being returned to non-indigenous persons by the comprehensive development associations and of conflicts, sometimes violent, with the indigenous peoples’ own authorities. 5 6 GE.22-11025 Act No. 3859, art. 11. Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, judgment No. 14545, 29 September 2006. 5