Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2000, Publicación: 88ª reunión CIT (2000)

Convenio sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales, 1989 (núm. 169) - México (Ratificación : 1990)

The Government has sent the following information:

With regard to the first paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts, the Government has reaffirmed its desire to pursue cooperation with the ILO not only by submitting reports and information requested from time to time, but also by the implementation, when necessary, of specific recommendations. With reference to the 1996 observation of the Committee of Experts, on 24 May 1999, the Government organized a "Seminar on the Inspection of Labour Conditions in the Rural Sector". This technical cooperation included the participation of ILO officials, representatives of indigenous peoples' organizations, and officials of the Mexican Government.

The second paragraph deals with the protection of land rights of the Huichol Indian community of San Andrés Cohamiata, in the municipality of Mezquitic, Jalisco. In June 1998 the Governing Body adopted the report of the committee set up to examine the representation concerning the violation by Mexico of ILO Convention No. 169, submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radio Education Trade Union Delegation, D-III-57, section XI, of the National Radio Education Trade Union (SNTE). The Government of Mexico had received supplementary information from this trade union delegation in August 1999 and replied in October 1999. At this stage, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to provide detailed information in its next report. The Government of Mexico provided the information as requested to the ILO on this representation concerning an alleged violation of Convention No. 169. According to the complainant, the Mexican authorities have not returned to the Huichol Indian community of San Andrés Cohamiata, and in particular to the "Tierra Blanca" group of Huichol Indians, land they had historically possessed and which had been given to another rural mixed-race population at Nayarit. This case has been on judicial appeal for several years. In this regard, the Government had presented its comments in communications dated 24 November 1997, 8 December 1997, and 9 and 24 March 1998. The Committee of Experts is already aware of the decision of the Agrarian Unity Tribunal of Tepic, Nayarit, of district XIX, which is the authority in charge of examining the "amparo" No. 430/96 (request for constitutional review), brought by the indigenous people of "Tierra Blanca" in application of the executory decision of the third circuit collegial tribunal which declared the lower court's decision groundless, resulting in the appeal procedure to clarify the terms used in the judgement which protected them. The "Asociacion jaliciense de apoyo a grupos indigenas" (AJAGI) was legally involved in the controversy concerning San Andrés Cohamiata and "Tierra Blanca". This association developed management advisory training and agrarian military defence and human rights activities in the Huichol region, in the states of Jalisco and Nayarit, and is funded by the Indian National Institute (INI) to develop its activities in the framework of a coordination programme of conventions regarding legal recourse. Detailed information will be supplied on this case in the next report of the Government in 2001; however, this discussion is a suitable forum at which to indicate that the case is before the Agrarian Unitary Tribunal. Concerning the executory act previously mentioned, on-site inspection is presently taking place.

The third paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts refers to a representation concerning land rights of the indigenous community of Chinanteco displaced in the Uxpanapa Valley in Veracruz. In November 1999 the Governing Body adopted the report of the committee set up to examine the representation concerning the violation by Mexico of ILO Convention No. 169. The representation had been submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Similar Workers. In January 1999 the Mexican Government received a request for information on the indigenous community of Chinanteco, and provided a reply on 25 February 1999. At this stage, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to bring a solution to the situation of the indigenous community of Chinanteco. The Government of Mexico has informed the ILO of the situation of the indigenous population of Chinanteco which had been displaced from their native land of Oaxaca in the Uxpanapa Valley, following a government decision to build a dam in 1972, and of the complaints regarding presidential decrees ordering their displacement. Reserving the right to provide supplementary information in the report it is preparing, the Government of Mexico has provided the following information on the current situation.

In the first place, the Government had concentrated its efforts on communication with the indigenous community of Chinanteco resettled in the Uxpanapa Valley. To this end the INI has supported the creation of social organizations such as the Committee for the Defence of Indian Rights, Chinanteco-Zoque-Totonaco and the Indian Council of Uxpanapa to protect the rights of the communities and to further economic and social development. Parallel to this, there is a Regional Indian Fund in the Uxpanapa Valley which supports the organizational process of the communities and promotes regional development. A Regional Indian Fund for the women of Chinanteco will be set up in August to promote training and development with regard to gender questions. Following its creation in 1996, the free municipality of Uxpanapa has benefited from significant financial resources: 15 million pesos during the past five years, financing public works, food projects and, in general, all economic and social development projects of the region. In November and December 1999, the INI developed workshops for evaluation and planning of infrastructures. These workshops helped to provide financing for various agricultural programmes and the purchase of machinery. Since January 1999, the municipality of the Uxpanapa Valley has the following public services: 19 systems of drinking water, 26 electrical energy networks, one drainage infrastructure, a market, a garrison, municipal agencies, a post office, a satellite telephone and a radio communication system. Concerning education, there were 44 crèches, 67 primary schools, nine secondary schools, two high schools and five dormitories for students of the INI. Concerning public health: one clinic of the ISSSTE, the IMSS-COPLAMA and a health secretariat, eight treatment centres organized by the health secretariat of the government of Veracruz, and six rural medical units.

The fourth paragraph of the observation referred to a loss of a right of inalienability of indigenous lands, to agreements with multinational enterprises allowing exploitation of mineral and forestry resources on indigenous lands without the involvement of indigenous peoples as contemplated in the Convention, the failure to take account of results of consultations with indigenous representatives concerning constitutional reforms, and allegations of abuse and exploitation of indigenous migrant workers. In September 1999, the International Labour Office sent the Government of Mexico information concerning a second report from the Authentic Workers' Front (FAT) on the situation of the indigenous populations in Mexico. The Government provided its comments on 5 November 1999. The Committee of Experts considered that the information provided in this reply was insufficient.

(a) The Government considers that land rights belong to every Mexican Indian. The lands of Indian populations can be considered in three different ways which are recognized by the Constitution: national, private and social. With regard to the composition of the population, the communes and the communities can be Indian or mixed-race; all are not made up of exclusively indigenous populations. Similarly, the indigenous populations of Mexico are not all organized in communes. Concerning the arguments according to which the protection of land of indigenous peoples had been ended with the repeal of the Federal Law on Agrarian Reform of 1972, according to which the Agrarian Reform of 1992 would render indigenous land transferable, attachable and seizable, it must be observed that the Constitution and numerous relevant articles of the Agrarian Law prove the contrary, since article 27 of the Constitution recognized the legal personality of the ejido (collective lands) and comunidades and that Title VII, paragraph 2, deals with protection and the integrity of the lands of indigenous peoples.

In its paragraph 4, the aforementioned text sets forth that: "The law, as concerns the wishes of the members of an ejido of a community to adopt the most suitable conditions for the exploitation of the productive resources, will regulate the exercise of rights of members of the community over the land and the ejidatario over its part (...) and as concerns its ejidatarios, will regulate transmission of land rights to other members of the community. Likewise, it will set the conditions according to which the ejido assembly grants to each member influence concerning its parcel. In the case of transfer of parcels, the right of preference set forth in the law will be respected".

In conformity with the Agrarian Law (articles 64 and 107), the land of the ejidos and the communities which are set aside by the Assembly for Human Settlement are inalienable and non-transferrable since they are a part of the irreducible patrimony of the community. Lands for building are the property of their holders, whether these are ejidos or members of a community, as set forth in the Federal Law on Agrarian Reform of 1972 and previous agrarian codes (1934, 1940 and 1942). Lands for collective use, governed by one or the other form of social property are inalienable, non-transferable and non-attachable, except in cases where the communal Agrarian Assembly -- the highest authority -- decides to transfer when and as it sees fit to do, to civil or commercial enterprises (articles 74, 75, 99 and 100). Land subdivided in parcels within domains (ejidos) belong to their allocates, who exercise a right of maintenance, use and usufruct. The law states the procedure to follow in order to transfer these lands and the relevant rights (articles 76-86). In conformity with article 101 of the previously mentioned law, the communal form of ownership implies the individual status of the member, a status which gives the latter the use and possession of his parcel, and right of transfer to parents or next-of-kin. Article 56 of the Agrarian Law states that it is for the communal Agrarian Assembly, collective domains or communities to designate its zones of parcels for common use or for settlement. Concerning land for collective use, it is also up to the assemblies to define the rights of members, the rule being that these rights are presumed to be granted on the basis of equality, unless the Assembly decides to attribute the parcels proportionately, according to the financial contribution, the work and the financial resources of each individual. In keeping with the preceding, and in direct connection with the legal safeguards under the law, the Agrarian National Register delivers certificates attesting to the rights on land for collective use. These certificates state the name of the holder as well as his percentage of rights over the lands for collective use, as provided in the agreements of the assemblies. It should be mentioned that certificates confirming the rights on lands for collective use do not state a specific surface area for their holders, since land for collective use is worked collectively, for the benefit of the agrarian community as a legal person and the ejidatarios or members of the community in their assigned proportion. It should be noted that the rules concerning the use of collective land, as set forth in article 10 of the aforementioned law, must be specified in the by-laws or communal statute, according to whether it is a ejido or a community.

As regards the devolution, transfer or conveyance of rights, if the Agrarian Law authorizes the member of an ejido to transfer his rights over a parcel as provided in article 80, this right simply allows conveyance either to other ejidatarios or other members of the same community, it being understood that the spouse and children of the transferor exercise the same right. Likewise, the Agrarian Law sets forth in article 47 that no ejidatario can hold rights over parcels with a surface area greater than 5 per cent of the total land of the ejido or the equivalent of a small holding. In the case of coemption, the Secretariat of Agrarian Reform orders, after review, a member of an ejido to sell the excess within one year from notification of the decision. As is the case with devolution of land, articles 81-86 of the Agrarian Law govern the procedure for full and complete accession to property. As regards communal property, under article 101, the Agrarian Law provides for the transfer of rights, this transfer being limited to parents or next of kin, but is not authorized for third parties outside the community. Any devolution of lands or accompanying rights which breach the Agrarian Law would be justifiable before the agrarian tribunals in such a manner that the Commissariat for Agrarian Questions has in this regard the prerogatives of the Public Minister and would represent the accusation in this context.

The sale of land is an historic phenomenon, which existed within the agrarian communities prior to the constitutional reform. It is necessary not to lose sight of the form which the conveyance of property or the use of property or land has taken. According to agrarian studies carried out on the ejidos by the Commissariat for Agrarian Questions in 1998, a third of the ejidatarios have an agreement for the use of their parcel which implies a transfer of the usufruct on the land in the form of tenant farming, an annuity or a loan. This signifies that the lands are worked by people other than their owners. Likewise, the survey showed that this type of practice has existed for many years and that they were only brought to light during the reform of article 27 of the Constitution. In fact, nearly one-third of the agricultural agreements pre-date the reform, 42 per cent have been drawn up since the start of the process in 1993 in collective property, and 26 per cent began when the Notarial Act was deposited and ended with the last harvest. According to this study, it can be seen that the forms according to which rural workers to whom the collective property belongs acquire these lands are determined by socio-economic and cultural conditions according to the large regions of the country, and they have been reinforced by the characteristics of the agrarian reform in each region.

(b) Concerning the working rights for mineral and forestry resources, it must be noted that article 27 of the Constitution, section VII, authorizes rural workers who belong to the community to join together with the State and third parties in authorizing the use of these lands.

Section VIII(b) of this constitutional provision declares void: "All concessions or sales of land, water or hills made by the Secretariats of State for Development and Finance or any other federal authority since 1 December 1876 to date, which enabled invasion or illegal occupation of collective lands, communal property, or other property belonging to inhabitants of villages, hamlets, congregations, or communities".

Likewise, the rural workers in villages of indigenous communities enjoy the right to work and manage forestry resources or those of protective natural zones by virtue of laws on forestry from 1997 and on ecological balance and environmental protection in 1996 in particular. The Government indicates that it is worried about the supervision of the application of these standards and procedures concerning the management of resources, the forms of participation, exploitation and administration as provided in the national legislation.

(c) Concerning consultations with indigenous representatives on constitutional reforms, as previously indicated to the Committee of Experts in the report sent in 1998, several drafts of constitutional reforms were submitted in March 1998 to Congress, with a view to recognizing indigenous rights. The impetus for the process of constitutional reform which recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of their cultural difference, began a little more than a decade ago in local Constitutions, in criminal codes and codes of procedure, regulatory laws, organic laws relating to judicial power, organic municipal laws and other texts in the federal and state framework.

(d) Independently of the information that the Government will provide in its next report, it should be noted that, concerning the abuse of indigenous migrant workers, the Government has held consultations with the responsible authorities and, when it has received this information, it will bring it before the Committee of Experts.

Concerning indigenous migrant workers, it should be noted that the Government has adopted the following measures in order to make known the labour rights applicable to indigenous communities:

-- publication and distribution among the core indigenous population of a document entitled "Labour rights and obligations for rural workers";

-- translation of information on labour rights in the different indigenous languages with the help of the INI;

-- communication of information on labour rights by means of 18 radio broadcasts by the INI;

-- creation and management of training scholarships and advice on commercialization of productive projects. In order to identify the needs concerning indigenous women workers, links were set up with programmes with the Secretariat of Labour, such as the programme for training of unemployed workers (PROBECAT), and the programme of qualification and integral modernization (CIMO), as well as the Council for Standardization and Certification (CONOCER);

-- the training of government officials in charge of explaining labour rights of indigenous populations, such as rural teachers of the National Council of Educational Development (CONAFE). Likewise, measures have been taken with the Autonomous University of Chapingo to train social workers;

-- the creation of a commission in charge of analysing the problems and determining the strategies for implementation of social security law. This commission includes organizations of employers, rural sector agricultural workers and the Federal Government through the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security and the Mexican Institute of Social Security;

-- the promotion and defence of labour rights;

-- the holding of seminars, including the "Seminar on Migrant Agricultural Workers" which was held in Los Angeles, California, in February 1999.

Moreover, in the field of safety and health, as well as conditions of work, the federal labour delegations of the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security have referred to a total of 4,237 inspections carried out in all the States of the Republic, in their monthly reports sent from January to September 1999.

Finally, concerning paragraph 5 of the observation, the Committee requests the Government to re-examine the measures taken to overcome the problems which indigenous people have had to face in the country. Throughout this commentary, the Government has indicated the mechanisms of permanent dialogue set up between it and the indigenous peoples at different levels. The mechanisms enable the description and the application of public policies, to find solutions to conflicts, and to meet the requests of the indigenous peoples. It is important to underline that these processes of change do not take place overnight. The Government will continue its efforts to improve the living conditions of indigenous peoples. As the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), sets forth in Article 2, with the participation of the indigenous population, Mexico has accepted to develop coordinated and systematic action with a view to protecting the rights of these people and guaranteeing the respect of their integrity. The Government indicates that it has demonstrated an openness in this regard at all levels. As an example, concerning the legislative power, it is appropriate to underline the plurality of parties present on committees in charge of indigenous peoples, both in the local Congress and in the federal Congress. The politico-social participation of indigenous people in Mexico has been gradually set up, particularly in the political, public administration, education, culture, health and social framework. Numerous measures have been taken to facilitate full, fair and equitable development of indigenous people, which have contributed to the improvement of their well-being and their standard of living. Progress and results in the policies and the measures taken by the Government of Mexico have taken place, and it should be underscored that these coincide with engagements resulting from the application of the Convention. The interaction between the Government of Mexico and the indigenous communities has been fruitful, open and responsible. This demonstrates that article 4 of the Constitution of Mexico is applied in this respect and ILO Convention No. 169 is incorporated in the national legislation. The Government will continue to work with the International Labour Organization in this regard.

In addition, before the Conference Committee, a Government representative stated that the observation of the Committee of Experts did not cast doubt on the compliance of the Government with the obligations it had assumed under the Convention. The Committee indicated that information on its comments should be provided by Mexico in its next report. The Government was already working on this report which would be submitted, as required, in 2001. For that purpose, it was holding consultations with all the institutions concerned with the situation of indigenous peoples. She reaffirmed the willingness of her Government to cooperate with the ILO.

The comments made by the Committee of Experts referred to the dialogue of the Mexican Government with indigenous communities and to three specific cases: the Huichol Indian Community, the indigenous communities in the Uxpanapa Valley and a general report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Mexico. She expressed surprise with regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the alleged expressions of concern by the Governing Body with regard to an "apparent lack of real dialogue between the Government and indigenous communities". She noted that the documents on the basis of which the Governing Body adopted its decisions on the cases to which the Committee of Experts referred did not contain such terms. There was permanent dialogue between the Mexican Government and its indigenous populations, which formed part of its public policies and was a characteristic of the country which had been in existence before its accession to Convention No. 169, the ratification of which marked the commitment of the Mexican State to its indigenous peoples.

In Mexico, 10 per cent of the population was indigenous. Most of them lived in rural areas in widely dispersed communities. Forty-five per cent of these communities consisted of fewer than 99 inhabitants and were located in mountainous or tropical areas, which made it difficult for them to have access to the basic social infrastructure of health, education and roads. A priority objective of the Mexican Government was to develop a new relationship between the State, society and indigenous peoples based on dialogue and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, as set out in the National Development Plan, 1995-2000. This Plan set out the main lines of the current Government's social, political and economic development policy. It also provided for the integral participation of all social groups in the improvement of the living conditions of indigenous peoples with a view to preserving their cultural and social heritage and ensuring recognition of their individual and collective rights.

With regard to the issue of the legal recognition of the rights of indigenous populations, she indicated that Mexico had commenced in 1986 a process of legislative reform at the federal, state and municipal levels based on consultation and consensus with a view to the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. This process had been intensified during the 1990s and had led in the first place to the reform of article 4 of the Constitution in 1992. This article recognized the pluri-cultural composition of Mexico "with its origins in its indigenous peoples" and established that "the law shall protect and promote the development of their languages, cultures, usages, customs, resources and specific forms of social organization, and shall guarantee to their members effective access to the jurisdiction of the State". This had been followed by amendments at the federal level, including the Agrarian Act, the General Education Act, the General Act respecting ecological balance and the protection of the environment, the Forest Act and the Copyright Act. This legislative process had not been confined to the federal level. Up to this year, some 16 of the 31 states of the Republic had adapted their constitutions to incorporate the principles for the recognition of cultural plurality set out in article 4 of the Constitution. The Federal Code of Penal Procedure and a number of state penal codes had been amended to include provisions envisaging the consideration of the usages and customs of indigenous peoples as elements in their assessment and to guarantee the presence of translators during legal proceedings. Options were also being explored for the adoption of legislation at the municipal level with a view to ensuring that the reforms had a greater impact and achieved a substantial change in the relations between the federal, state and municipal authorities for the benefit of indigenous peoples.

Between 1995 and 1996, the national consultation had been held on indigenous rights and participation, with the broad representation of indigenous peoples. The Federal Executive had introduced a constitutional reform initiative in 1998 respecting indigenous rights and culture which recognized the right of indigenous peoples to free determination, in the sense of the autonomous capacity to take decisions on, among other matters, the manner in which they lived in common and organized themselves, the application of their legal systems, the election of their authorities and the preservation of their culture. It was the responsibility of the Congress to decide upon and discuss this and other initiatives. At the international level, indigenous Mexican legislators participated actively in the American Indian Parliament (PARLATINO) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. She emphasized that it was the traditional priority of the Mexican Government to combat the social, economic and educational backwardness of indigenous peoples. The national programme to promote priority regions operated on a basis of dialogue between the federal, state and municipal governments and social and community organizations. This programme promoted integrated and sustainable processes of development in rural and indigenous regions affected by the highest levels of social exclusion through the management and redistribution of economic resources. The plan gave priority for immediate action to 35 regions, 22 of which contained 51 per cent of the indigenous population. During the course of 1999, the programme had channelled investments worth over $900 million. This year, the amount would be over $1,000 million. With regard to health care, between 1995 and 1999, coverage had been extended in the indigenous areas of 24 states through the provision of basic services which directly benefited 5 million indigenous persons. During the 1999-2000 school year, basic education had been provided to over 1 million indigenous children, who received school books free of charge in 36 indigenous languages, as well as school equipment and learning materials. During the same period, 129 editions of books in indigenous languages had been reprinted with a circulation of 1 million copies. The programme of regional Indian funds of the National Indian Institute was promoting local and regional development through production projects developed by indigenous organizations of rural producers. The management, administration, technical follow-up and evaluation of these projects was also the responsibility of the above organizations. Over the past five years, this programme had covered 23 states, benefiting 11,583 organizations with 1.5 million indigenous members.

The Government representative reaffirmed that the access to justice and the promotion and defence of the human rights of indigenous peoples was also a priority of her Government, to which great efforts and resources were assigned. The National Human Rights Commission had established in 1998 a general support unit to address the demands and needs of indigenous peoples. The Secretariat of the Government, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic, the Federal Public Legal Institute and the National Indian Institute had signed an agreement to coordinate their activities and resources with a view to ensuring that indigenous persons who were the victims of crimes at the federal level had access under the best possible conditions to the jurisdiction of the State. Since 1995, a programme had been in operation to promote concerted agreements respecting access to justice, through which the National Indian Institute provided financing to indigenous organizations and communities and to non-indigenous organizations which worked in Indian regions with a view to promoting self-management in areas such as legal defence, guidance, training and the dissemination of information on rights. Through this programme, technical and financial support had been provided to almost 1,000 indigenous civil and community organizations.

She also referred to the civil registration programme, the objectives of which were to bring the civil registration services closer to indigenous persons; to train community promoters to facilitate the delivery of birth, marriage and death certificates and reduce administrative requirements for the indigenous population. This programme was particularly important in the case of migrant indigenous persons. Among the many activities undertaken to disseminate information on indigenous rights, the Mexican Government, through the Labour Secretariat, the National Human Rights Commission and the National Indian Institute had issued publications and analyses of indigenous rights, including information to promote the provisions of Convention No. 169. In 1999 alone, over 1,000 radio programmes had been broadcast in 954 towns in indigenous areas.

Land was the fundamental basis of indigenous and rural culture and undoubtedly constituted a fundamental issue for the peoples and the Government. Since the first decade of the twentieth century, the Mexican revolutionary heritage had recognized that land belonged to whomsoever worked it. It could therefore be claimed that the first agrarian policy in Mexico had also been indigenous. Through the distribution of agricultural land, thousands of groups of rural workers had been provided with land for the upkeep of their families. At the present time, there were 27,460 ejidos (collective lands) and 2,400 comunidades. Over 50 per cent of the national territory was therefore under social ownership, which left less than half for private property, national lands and agricultural and stock-raising farms. The ejidos and comunidades in Mexico were two forms of land ownership which were characterized by their legal personality and inheritance rights. Indigenous peoples owned land under all the forms of ownership recognized by the Mexican Constitution. After 85 uninterrupted years of agrarian policies, the Government continued to endeavour to achieve the effective delivery of agrarian justice. Agrarian tribunals had been established in 1992 and enjoyed autonomy, full jurisdiction and were obliged to take into consideration the language, usages and customs of indigenous persons in their proceedings and to ensure the presence of a translator for anyone who required one. In 1999, the agrarian tribunals examined 30,664 cases of disputes concerning land holdings in ejidos and comunidades by indigenous populations. A satisfactory solution was found in 82 per cent of these cases. The Agrarian Legal Office, which had been set up in the same year, was the body responsible for the defence, representation and provision of free legal advice to holders of ejidos and comunidades, workers in ejidos and comunidades, daily agricultural workers and private landowners. The Agrarian Legal Office worked with the National Agrarian Registry to provide security of title for the ownership of rural lands. With a view to ensuring legal security to the rights and lands in ejidos and comunidades, a programme had also been established for the certification of the rights to ejidos and the titularization of unused land. The programme was a product of the reform of article 27 of the Constitution in 1992. The objective of the programme was to regularize rights of workers in ejidos and comunidades and to delimit lands within agrarian zones. Government agencies which were involved in agrarian issues, and particularly the assemblies of workers in ejidos and comunidades, which were the highest bodies in agrarian zones, participated in the application of the programme. The above assemblies decided upon the time, the manner and the periods over which the certification and titularization process of their lands and rights would be carried out.

The Government representative indicated that public policies could not be carried out without the participation of indigenous peoples and that Mexico was therefore envisaging mechanisms of dialogue for their design and implementation. The representation of indigenous peoples was guaranteed through their participation in all political parties and in the federal and state legislative assemblies. For example, 40 per cent of the deputies were indigenous in Oaxaca, 16 per cent in Quintana Roo, 15 per cent in the Federal District and 10 per cent in Chiapas and Tabasco. This trend for wider representation was also being extended to the municipal level. Indigenous affairs commissions, composed of the various political parties, existed in 56 per cent of the states of the Republic, including those with the highest proportions of indigenous peoples. The Congress of the Union also had a Commission on Indigenous Affairs.

She then referred to a number of the points set out in the observation of the Committee of Experts. Reference was made in paragraph 2 to the land rights of the Huichol Indian Community in San Andrés Cohamiata, Mezquitic Municipality, Jalisco. She recalled in this respect that Mexico had already provided the ILO with information on the occasion of a representation alleging non-compliance with Convention No. 169. According to the representation, the authorities had not returned to the Huichol community in San Andrés Cohamiata lands which had historically been in their possession, and particularly the area of the Huichol group of Tierra Blanca, the ownership of which had been recognized to another agrarian area in Nayarit. As the Committee of Experts was already aware, the Huichol of Tierra Blanca obtained a protection order under the terms of which the decision of the Unitary Agrarian Tribunal of Tepic, Nayarit, was overturned. In complying with the protection order, the case was currently at the stage of the presentation of evidence before the same Tribunal. Information on the outcome would be provided in the next report in 2001. In this respect, she emphasized that due attention had been paid to the Huichol people and existing judicial bodies had been used. She also indicated that the Jalicense support association for indigenous groups had represented and defended the persons concerned. This social organization undertook managerial, advisory, training and defence activities in agrarian matters and human rights in the Huichol region in the states of Jalisco and Nayarit. Over a period of five years, it had received from the National Indian Institute technical and financial support amounting to around $100,000 within the context of the programme promoting concerted agreements for access to justice.

She noted that paragraph 3 of the observation of the Committee of Experts referred to a representation concerning the land rights of Chinantecos indigenous persons relocated in the Uxpanapa Valley in Veracruz. She stated that, in the same way as with other indigenous peoples, through its everyday work the Government was strengthening channels of communication with Chinantecos indigenous persons relocated in the Uxpanapa Valley. The National Indian Institute had supported the establishment and financed social organizations, such as the Committee for the Defence of Chinanteco-Zoque-Totonaco Indigenous Rights and the Uxpanapa Indian Council. These were organizations which protected the rights of communities and promoted their economic and social development. The Uxpanapa Valley Regional Indian Fund also supported the process of organizing the communities and promoting their regional development. The National Indian Institute had participated in the establishment of the Uxpanapa Municipality in 1996. Through the Regional Fund, it was currently channelling significant resources to the region for public works, nutrition projects and social and economic development. At the end of 1999, the National Indian Institute held diagnostic and planning workshops for infrastructure, the results which made it possible to obtain support for the opening of roads and the implementation of various agricultural projects. She added that in the next few weeks a regional fund would be established for Chinanteca to promote training and development activities in the area with a gender perspective.

With regard to paragraph 4 of the observation, she stated that the right to land was enjoyed by all Mexicans. The Mexican Constitution established three forms of land ownership: national, private and social. The lands of indigenous peoples could be owned under any of these forms of ownership. The report of the Committee of Experts had referred to the claims made by the Authentic Workers' Front (FAT), which had erroneously alleged that the agrarian reform of 1992 had had the effect of making indigenous lands alienable, seizable and prescriptible. She denied that this was the case and stated that the Mexican Constitution recognized the legal personality of communities on ejidos and comunidades and protected their ownership of the land, both in terms of human settlement and productive activities. It also protected the integrity of the lands of indigenous groups. The Agrarian Act provided that the assemblies of agrarian areas were the entities which determined the possibility of alienating their lands or their rights. In this way, the workers on ejidos were the ones who had the exclusive competence to decide upon the alienation of their rights and lands. With regard to communal ownership, the Agrarian Act permitted the cession of rights to communal land, but provided that it could only be to the benefit of family members and neighbours of the community. This meant that the cession of rights was not permitted for the benefit of third parties unrelated to the community. She emphasized that any dispute in this respect could be taken to the agrarian tribunals.

Turning to the issue of rights to the exploitation of mineral and forest resources, she stated that article 27 of the Constitution allowed workers in ejidos and comunidades to establish associations among themselves with the State and with third parties, as well as to grant the right to use and benefit from their lands. Similarly, the protection of the resources and the participation of indigenous peoples and communities in activities related to the exploitation, management and administration of forest resources and resources in protected natural areas were set out in the Forest Act, 1997, and the Act of 1996 respecting ecological equilibrium and environmental protection, among other legislation. The Government supervised the application of rules respecting the type and management of resources, forms of participation, exploitation and administration set out in the law.

With reference to consultations with indigenous representatives concerning constitutional reforms, she stated that the Government had already reported that constitutional reform initiatives had been submitted to the Congress of the Union in March 1998 for obtaining the recognition of indigenous rights.

With regard to the dissemination of information on the rights of indigenous migrant workers, the Government of Mexico was publishing and distributing documents such as the volume entitled "Labour rights and duties of agricultural workers". Within the framework of programmes of grants for vocational training, integrated skills and the modernization and certification of vocational skills, a service had been established to guide and manage the award of grants for training and guidance in commerce and productive projects, and for the training of community resource persons for the dissemination of the labour rights of indigenous workers. A commission had also been established to examine the problem and establish strategies to promote their right to social security.

She referred to paragraph 5 of the observation, in which the Government was requested to re-examine the measures it was taking in regard to the problems encountered by indigenous peoples in the country. In this respect, she recalled that many channels of dialogue existed in Mexico between the Government, indigenous peoples and society. One of the major changes of the past decade had been the development of public policies which focused on indigenous peoples as the agents of their own development and promoted their cultural and linguistic diversity. All public policies respecting indigenous peoples therefore included dialogue mechanisms for their design and implementation. Indigenous peoples also enjoyed high levels of representation in the Federal Congress and in local Congress. These were real and effective institutions of dialogue. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the Government was taking responsibility, with the participation of its indigenous peoples, for the development of coordinated and systematic action to protect their rights and ensure respect for their identity. For her country, compliance with the terms of article 4 of the Constitution also implied compliance with Convention No. 169. She emphasized the amply demonstrated will of the Government to cooperate with the ILO, particularly for the application of Convention No. 169. The Government compiled its reports on the basis of broad consultation processes. It dealt with complaints relating to specific cases and carried out cooperative activities such as the "seminar on the inspection of working conditions in the rural sector", held in May 1999.

All the efforts which had been described above indicated the series of coordinated government processes and activities which formed the historical, everyday and permanent work in relation to indigenous peoples, communities and organizations at the various levels through many institutions. These processes required time and evaluation. The task was not easy, but awareness was high that in order to carry through legislative action and programmes it was necessary to maintain the political will and the co-responsibility of the various actors in order to continue achieving the consensus needed to promote the participation of indigenous persons in the future of the country. This was a democratic and ongoing exercise which touched on social, cultural, political and legal matters involving the citizens of Mexico.

The Worker members noted with interest the oral and written information provided by the Government of Mexico. As the written information submitted was voluminous and was received at a late stage, they proposed to defer the examination of this document to the Committee of Experts. They underscored that this case had been suggested by the Workers' group and it demonstrated their effort to balance attention given by the Committee on the Application of Standards to basic human rights cases and other difficult cases. They were somewhat concerned by the possible inference that could be drawn from the statement by the Government representative, Director of the National Indian Institute, that this case did not reflect serious problems. With reference to the Government's query as to the basis for the Committee of Experts' conclusions, he recalled, in particular, paragraph 45(a) of the November 1999 report of the tripartite committee set up to examine a representation under article 24 (GB.276/16/3, November 1999). They emphasized that, in their conclusions, the Committee of Experts had expressed serious concerns by the apparent lack of dialogue between the Government and the indigenous peoples. Another main point was the information submitted by the Authentic Workers' Front (FAT) which was still under scrutiny by the Committee of Experts. They expressed concern over the fact that the Government did not seem to attach sufficient importance to the grievances and dissatisfaction voiced by the indigenous peoples. While they acknowledged and had taken note of the efforts the Government had reported taking, they maintained that the Government had not deployed sufficient efforts, in particular towards establishing the appropriate climate of consultation. They further noted, with interest, that this case had been brought to the ILO by trade unions. However, neither one of the larger employers' and workers' organizations in Mexico seemed to have taken any interest in this case as their views had not been made known to the Committee of Experts so far. In this context, the Worker members quoted from paragraph 70 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts in which the Committee emphasized the importance it attached to the contribution by employers' and workers' organizations to the task of the supervisory bodies. They further considered it relevant to note that member States who ratified a Convention should be able to implement their obligations forthwith. A ratification could not only be seen as a declaration of good intentions. They concluded by expressing support for the proposal by the Committee of Experts that the Government request technical assistance from the International Labour Office (paragraph 5 of the observation by the Committee of Experts). Such assistance could represent a good starting point for a dialogue to seek a solution to the serious problems this case reflected. They underscored the importance of a broad representation in such a dialogue including, inter alia, the small trade unions who brought this case to the attention of the ILO and genuine representatives for the indigenous peoples concerned.

The Employer members recalled that this Committee had previously discussed the case of Mexico in 1995. At that time, information of serious problems involving Chiapas had been received from organizations representing indigenous communities and from the National Indian Institute. Noting that the Committee was now examining different issues, the Employer members thanked the Government representative for supplying a detailed report on the issues raised. The Committee of Experts had included four points in its observation, but had not provided sufficient detail. Accordingly, this Committee could not evaluate the issues in depth. With regard to the issue of the land rights of the Huichol community, the Employer members noted the Government's indication that a judicial appeal (amparo) was being pursued and that the indigenous peoples' rights had been recognized in that case. Noting that special agrarian courts existed in Mexico to address such land rights issues and resolve disputes, the Employer members considered that this special court system offered an effective form of assistance. Turning to another issue of land rights concerning the Uxpanapa Valley indigenous communities, who had been displaced following the construction of a dam, the Employer members noted that this problem was longstanding. Noting that the situation had not been resolved, the Employer members indicated that a real dialogue between the Government and the indigenous community might be necessary, as suggested by the Committee of Experts. Regarding the Government's conclusion of agreements with multinational enterprises allowing exploitation of mineral and forestry resources on indigenous lands, the Employer members noted that the Committee could only hold an interim discussion on this point, as insufficient information had been supplied.

The Employer members noted that the two representations brought before the Governing Body had led to the adoption of conclusions and recommendations suggesting that the Government engage in dialogue with the indigenous communities to resolve issues in accordance with the consultative spirit on which the Convention was based. Noting that consultation appeared to be the main issue of this case and was stressed in the closing paragraphs of the Committee of Experts' comments, the Employer members pointed out that, according to the Director of the National Indian Institute, the institute's main activity was in fact to develop and establish such a dialogue with the indigenous communities. The Committee should therefore express its hope that the necessary measures would be developed and expedited so that tangible problems could be resolved. The Employer members requested the Government to provide detailed information on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer member of Mexico expressed full support for the report presented by the Government representative. He said that Mexican employers witnessed and were protagonists in the efforts made by the Government to maintain social dialogue and promote investment in the most isolated regions of the country, in which indigenous peoples predominated, with a view to ensuring their economic and social integration with the rest of the population. For this purpose, the development of private initiative was being promoted in these areas through fiscal incentives and many types of facilities to encourage the installation of industry. In this way, employment and the recruitment of local inhabitants was being encouraged. Nevertheless, he warned that the subject covered by the Convention lent itself to all types of rhetoric and manipulation by interests which were completely unrelated to the issue. It was no surprise that so-called workers' organizations, with a view to gaining notoriety, claimed to submit complaints concerning disputes of which they had no knowledge. It would be very different if the ethnic groups concerned had submitted a complaint setting out in detail the matter which was of concern to them. He emphasized that in Mexico the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples were recognized and respected and that they were considered to be an important part of the population. He added that employers were interested in developing sources of employment in the most isolated parts of the country. He stated that the Convention was fully applied in a context of dialogue, with the participation of the various social partners. Finally, he expressed the view that the additional report requested by the Committee of Experts from the Government would be sufficient to respond to the points raised by the Conference Committee.

The Worker member of Mexico indicated that the Confederation of Mexican Workers, like the National Peasants' Confederation and the Indigenous Council, had taken part alongside the Government in the legislative reform process through discussions and dialogue with various legislative bodies at the federal, state and local levels. At the state level it had been decided to draft community laws. He pointed out that more than half of Mexico's states had amended their constitutions to respect the principles of the Convention. It was important to observe that workers, peasants and indigenous peoples belonged to the Union Congress, whose decisions were taken jointly. The fact that Mexico had more than 100 distinct indigenous groups within its borders, each with its own language and customs, posed a serious problem. Those communities were open to interference from the outside not only by groups seeking to safeguard human rights but also from every sort of religious sect taking advantage of the situation to pursue its own interests. Peace and order could only be maintained under such circumstances in the context of respect for the law. Otherwise, the situation would degenerate into a large-scale conflict which, understandably, no one wanted. To conclude, the Worker member stated that a dialogue was under way and the problems were being addressed slowly, but productively.

The Worker member of Brazil indicated that he was speaking out of solidarity for the Mexican people and because there was also a high number of indigenous peoples in his country. He welcomed the statement by the Government representative. He stated that it was important to examine whether the activities and policies which had been described were in conformity with the Convention. He recalled the importance of one of the basic objectives of the Convention, namely that indigenous peoples should participate in the development of the policies applicable to them and should be consulted through appropriate procedures. In this respect, he shared the concern of the Committee of Experts with regard to the development of Mexican public policies which did not respect this principle. He emphasized that consultation required institutionalized mechanisms which were freely accessible to all organizations. Another aspect referred to in previous years by the Committee of Experts had been the legal and constitutional reforms which could have the effect of negating or restricting the legal scope of the provisions of the Convention. In that regard, he recalled that a country that ratified a Convention undertook to give it full effect in national law and could not therefore introduce reforms which undermined its application. With regard to Articles 8 to 12 of the Convention, he recalled that in previous years the Committee of Experts had expressed concern at the large number of indigenous persons who were in prison in the State of Oaxaca without having been found guilty. With regard to Articles 13 to 19 of the Convention, it had requested information from the Government concerning whether the ownership and possession of the land was guaranteed for indigenous communities. In respect of Article 20 of the Convention, which dealt with the recruitment and conditions of employment of indigenous peoples, it had noted that it was regrettable that wage discrimination still existed and needed to be eliminated. Finally, he reaffirmed that an essential element of the Convention consisted of the holding of consultations with representative organizations. He added that where there was no certainty of being able to work with independent trade unions, it could not be said that the Convention was being applied.

Another Government representative, with reference to the intervention by the Worker members, said that there had perhaps been a misunderstanding when the other Government representative, in her statement had referred to the observation of the Committee of Experts which indicated that concern had been "expressed by the Governing Body over an apparent lack of real dialogue between the Government and the indigenous communities". She had stated that the above statement did not come from the documents prepared for the Governing Body and that it was certainly an error on the part of the Committee of Experts. While the Committee of Experts had indeed expressed concern at the lack of dialogue, this was an unjustified concern since, as had been mentioned, there were numerous channels of dialogue. In contrast with the views expressed by the Worker members he denied his Government was minimizing the problem and emphasized that it was aware that the indigenous people had been exploited and that it was endeavouring to resolve the heritage of 500 years. For this purpose, the Constitution had been amended, new programmes had been implemented and funds and policies developed in favour of this underprivileged category of the population. It was not the intention of the Government to ignore this situation nor to remain inactive. It was not possible to expect that the poverty which existed in his country, and particularly in indigenous populations, could be resolved in the short term. The situation was a phenomenon of underdevelopment and efforts were being made to resolve it. He affirmed that Mexico had not ratified the Convention prematurely, as stated by the Worker members. When it had done so, all the provisions of the Convention had been covered in national legislation. Finally, he emphasized that none of the supervisory bodies of the ILO had stated that Mexico had violated the Convention.

Another Government representative emphasized that no attempt was being made by her Government to minimize the issue of indigenous peoples, which constituted an important problem in respect of which gradual progress was being made towards achieving results. She did not agree with the view expressed by the Worker members that the measures taken for the benefit of indigenous peoples could be described as completed. These were issues of justice and development, and it was never possible to consider that a task had been completed. If that was so, the ILO would not exist. With regard to the question of consultations, she indicated that they were not only common practice in her country, but also constituted an obligation for Mexican public servants. All policies and activities were organized and undertaken in consultation with the various indigenous communities. In response to the question raised by the Worker member of Brazil on land ownership, she cited part of article 27 of the Constitution under the terms of which "the legal personality of population units shall be recognized and their ownership of the land shall be protected. The integrity of the lands of indigenous groups shall be protected". She emphasized that indigenous persons were not only entitled to own land and to the protection of their ownership, but also to recognition of the legal personality of their communities. She added that the National Indian Institute and the Social Development Secretariat were national consultative bodies which contributed to the dialogue on self-development projects, technical assistance and human rights, among other matters. A new body had recently been created with the participation of 50 representatives of 35 indigenous regions and in which 17 different languages were spoken. These were examples of institutionalized and pluri-cultural consultation bodies.

The Worker members expressed their full appreciation of the difficulties caused by the level of poverty in Mexico referred to by the Government representative. They disagreed, however, with the inference that poverty was or could be seen as the basic explanation for the problems at issue. Although they agreed that it was essential to obtain further information on this case, and that technical assistance from the ILO usefully could contribute thereto, they reiterated that one of the main problems in this case was the apparent lack of dialogue with the indigenous peoples concerned.

The Employer members noted the statement by the Government representative that numerous measures had been taken in order to resolve the problems encountered with respect to indigenous and tribal peoples. To this effect, an amendment to the Constitution, amendments of legislation and other measures had taken place. However, the Committee was not in a position to determine whether these measures were sufficient to protect the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. This was also due to the particular character of the Convention which provided for complex measures to be taken by a ratifying State. Therefore, this discussion had rather an interim character which nevertheless was valuable as it should encourage the Government to take prompt action, and contributed to creating a greater awareness of the problems of indigenous and tribal peoples. In conclusion, they stated that the Government should provide additional information in a report.

The Committee noted the detailed written and oral information supplied by the Government representatives, and the discussion which took place. The information provided indicated that the Government was taking active measures to address the questions raised by the Committee of Experts, but that continuing efforts were still required. It noted with concern that the Governing Body, in its conclusions on two representations under article 24 of the Constitution, had evoked problems in carrying out effective consultations between the Government and representatives of indigenous peoples. Similar questions had been raised in comments by workers' organizations, as had continuing allegations of labour abuses practised against rural indigenous workers and questions concerning the land rights of indigenous peoples. The Committee urged the Government to continue to provide detailed information on measures to the Committee of Experts to resolve the numerous questions raised by the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention, with the technical assistance of the Office, if necessary.