Regulatory Approaches to genetically modified organisms in the EU and Australia

By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

For thousands of years, humans have selected the plants and animals with the most desirable characteristics to yield the next generations of food and feed. These desirable characteristics came about through naturally occurring variations in the genetic build of those plants and animals. However, in recent years, modern biotechnology techniques, also known as gene technologies, have made it possible to modify the genetic building blocks of living cells and organisms. Essentially, these gene technologies allow for  the artificial modification of genetic material to give organisms new characteristics, such as increasing a plant’s resistance to environmental pressures, diseases, or insects. Such organisms are also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 

Over the years, as gene editing technologies have become more advanced and widely utilized, states have adopted regulatory frameworks governing GMOs. At present, there is no uniformity in the overall regulatory approaches to gene editing technologies and the sale of GMO foods and feed. A report issued in 2021 by the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency has shed light on the diversity of approaches. This blog takes a closer look at the regulatory framework in the European Union (EU) and Australia in relation to GMOs and genetically modified (GM) food and feed, to exemplify the different approaches when it comes to the regulation of GMOs.  

The EU 

The EU regulatory framework is premised on principles relating to pre-market authorization based on a prior risk assessment, traceability of GMOs through production and distribution chains, and labeling of GMOs on the market. Currently, Directive 2001/18/EC (GMO Directive) regulates the authorization of deliberate, and experimental, releases and the placing of GMOs on the market. This Directive requires a risk assessment of GMOs intended for release into the environment. The authorization procedure for food and feed can be found under a separate Regulation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the risk assessment body that ensures that authorizations are only issued when it identifies no risks for health or the environment. In the authorization procedure, the regulatory framework ensures a high level of transparency whereby information on the applications for authorization, supplementary information provided by applicants, and opinions from the risk assessment authorities are made available to the public. The only exception provides for the exclusion of confidential commercial information.

Traceability and labeling requirements ensure that relevant information on GMOs is available for operators and consumers. Labeling of GMOs and traceability of GMOs and GM food and feed is defined and addressed under Regulation No (EC) 1830/2003. Specific requirements for the labeling of GM food and feed are outlined in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. These labeling requirements aim to provide consumers, farmers, and other interested parties with the freedom of choice. 

In 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its judgment in its Confédération paysanne case (C-528/16). This judgment has come under criticism from many who describe the EU’s regulatory approach as highly restrictive. This is because the ECJ stated that organisms obtained by modern directed mutagenesis techniques are to be considered as GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive In other words, the Court decided that under the current GMO regulatory framework, modern techniques and methods for modifying genetic material constitute a modification that does not fall under the mutagenesis exemption. 

Briefly, mutagenesis is a technology that allows for making genetic modifications which mimic spontaneous mutations that would occur naturally, despite being the result of human intervention. Generally, this would be considered a genetic modification technique. However, under recital 17 of the GMO Directive - the mutagenesis exemption - the directive does not apply to “organisms obtained through techniques of genetic modification which have conventionally been used in a number of applications” and have “a long safety record.” Thus, this judgment clarified that new genetic modification techniques that allow for targeted mutagenesis (more modern genetic technologies) interventions will not be exempt, as opposed to conventional random methods of mutagenesis which have been relied on in the past.  Hence, modifications through these modern techniques will be subject to the stringent requirements of risk assessment and authorization. On the one hand, this judgment has been characterized as a “missed opportunity for agricultural innovation in the EU.” On the other hand, many farmers and environmentalists have welcomed this decision, demonstrating support for the Union’s cautious approach when it comes to GMOs. 

Australia

In Australia, the Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator), an independent statutory office holder, coordinates the regulation of GMOs and ensures compliance with the conditions of any approvals through inspections, monitoring, audits, and investigations. The Regulator is supported by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) which is part of the Department of Health. 

The national regulatory framework for gene technology consists of the Australian Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and Gene Technology Regulations 2001, and corresponding State and Territory legislation. This framework prohibits the sale of food produced using gene technology or containing ingredients produced using gene technology, unless the food is listed in Schedule 26 of the 1.5.2 Standard of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The standard also establishes labeling requirements for food produced using gene technology. It requires that a food for sale that is produced using gene technology includes the statement “genetically modified” in conjunction with the name of the GM food. However, unlike within the EU, Standard 1.5.2 does not outline any specific requirements for traceability.

Diverging Approaches 

The aforementioned regulatory approaches are similar in many regards. However, more recently, in contrast to the ECJ’s ruling in 2018, Australia has pursued a different approach whereby it has exempted several gene editing techniques from its Gene Technology Regulations 2001. In doing so, Australia has acknowledged that these more modern techniques produce results identical to the products of conventional mutagenesis, and that more modern techniques  have comparable safety records. As mentioned before, the ECJ has held the opposite, where no such safety record can be definitively established for more modern gene editing techniques. 

Thus, those who hold that mutagenesis and modern gene editing techniques are comparable and have comparable safety records have considered the ECJ’s judgment to be unscientific, particularly in comparison to Australia’s approach. This is because Australia has exempted modern mutagenesis techniques from its regulatory framework, implying that it considered these genetic engineering techniques to be as safe as previously established cultivation methods, whereas the EU has held that this is not the case.  Furthermore, this decision has been considered problematic because organisms edited through conventional mutagenesis may be indistinguishable from organisms edited through more modern targeted mutagenesis. Thus, a product may be  subject to, or exempt from GMO regulations because of the use of a particular gene editing technology, despite there being no difference in the outcome (i.e. the final result). Seeing that other countries do not regulate such products as GMOs, and as such do not have the same restrictions and requirements, for instance in terms of traceability, this may lead to accidental imports and undermine the enforcement of the GMO regulatory framework in the EU. This is because other countries have exempted GMOs that have been edited with more modern technologies from such restrictions and labeling requirements. Thus, the EU’s approach has come under criticism from many, whereby the European Commission’s scientific advisors have recommended that the EU revise its GMO regulatory framework. 

The European Commission has recently published a study on the status of New Genomic Techniques under EU law. In light of its findings, the Commission plans to initiate a policy action on plants produced through modern targeted mutagenesis. This will involve an impact assessment and a public consultation with the aim of achieving “proportionate regulatory oversight” that would ensure high protection of human, animal, and environmental health, whilst allowing for further innovation. 

Conclusion 
Thus, whilst the regulatory frameworks in the EU and Australia are comparable, their respective approach to GMOs has become more divergent recently. Whilst Australia seems to be loosening its regulations, the EU maintains a more restrictive approach towards GMOs. In light of many calls for the EU to change or update its current regulatory framework, it remains to be seen whether the policy plans initiated by the Commission will lead to an approach similar to Australia, or whether the EU will maintain its current approach.

Syria’s New Torture Law - A Step Forward?

By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Over the past decade, documentation has shown that the Syrian regime has employed a systematic strategy that oppresses its citizens through the widespread use of torture perpetrated by state authorities. Many have condemned these practices, including United Nations (UN) mechanisms, such as the Security Council and the Committee Against Torture (Committee), urging Syria to cease such practices. More recently, Canada and the Netherlands have jointly announced their intentions to hold Syria to account for its human rights violations. 

Nonetheless, Syria has recently issued Law No.16 criminalizing acts of torture. Seeing that Syria is party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), this short piece takes a closer look at whether this law is in line with the provisions of the CAT, particularly Article 14 which requires that victims of torture and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment obtain redress. 

The Prohibition of Torture and the Right to Redress

The Committee has explained that in line with Article 14 CAT the term “redress” entails both the concepts of “effective remedy” and “reparation.” The reparative concept outlined by the Committee refers to the full scope of measures required to address violations of the CAT.  In its General Comment No. 3, the Committee also underlines that the implementation and enforcement of Article 14 CAT is highly important to ensure the effective prohibition of torture. It clarified that, for states parties to be considered to provide redress in line with the provisions of the CAT, their obligations are two-fold: procedural and substantive. To fulfil their procedural obligations, states shall enact laws and establish investigation bodies, complaints mechanisms, and independent judicial bodies competent to ensure redress for torture victims. At the substantive level, states must ensure that victims obtain restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Keeping with the Committee’s General Comment, states parties are to ensure that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred or whether it was carried out by a former government, have access to their rights to remedy and to effectively obtain redress. Furthermore, the Committee explicitly reinforces the absolute notion of the prohibition of torture by reiterating that under no circumstances may arguments relating to national security be relied on to deny redress for victims.

Moreover, the Committee also clarifies that states are required to investigate and criminally prosecute allegations related to acts of torture, and to refrain from interfering with proceedings regarding torture allegations. To do otherwise would constitute a denial of redress and thus a violation of a state’s obligations under Article 14 CAT. 

The Syrian Law 

Law No. 16 (2022) criminalizes torture by imposing a sentence of at least three years in prison. Aggravating circumstances, such as death through torture, or torture through rape, may allow for the imposition of the death penalty. It further outlines that state authorities cannot order the infliction of torture on anyone, and that evidence collected through torture is to be considered void. 

Whilst the criminalization of torture can be seen as in improvement, the Syrian law falls short in many regards in relation to the provisions of the CAT, particularly Article 14 CAT. Firstly, the Syrian law does not establish any independent mechanism for the oversight and enforcement of the law and its implementation. Secondly, there is legislation in force which provides immunities for employees of the State Security Department for crimes committed whilst carrying out their duties, such as Article 16 of Legislative Decree No.14 (1969). Thirdly, in line with Syria’s Penal Code, criminal laws do not apply retroactively. If this would be the case for this legislation, this would leave many individuals tortured before this date no option of redress. 

The proper enforcement and implementation of Article 14 CAT ensures for the effective prohibition of torture. As the law stands currently, victims of torture, particularly those of the last decade, do not appear to have access to effective remedies and reparations. Furthermore, the lack of independent mechanisms for the oversight and enforcement of the law, as well as the legislation in place that provides for immunities, leave Syria in arrears of the procedural and substantive obligations encompassed under the CAT and Article 14. 

Conclusion 
The Committee has previously clarified in its General Comments that specific impediments to the right to redress and the proper implementation of Article 14 include, but are not limited to, inadequate national legislation, state secrecy laws, statutes of limitations, amnesties, and immunities. In the case of Syria, several of these factors challenge the full respect and enforcement of the CAT’s provisions, especially in relation to redress for victims. Thus, whilst the promulgation of a law criminalizing torture is a step in the right direction, this should not overshadow the remaining gaps that need to be addressed, in relation to the proportionality of punishments imposed (i.e. death penalty), enforcement of the prohibition of torture, and redress for victims. It remains to be seen how and whether this law will be enforced, and how its shortcomings will be addressed. 

Revolving doors in the EU Commission: an overview from the European Ombudsman's inquiry

By: Guillermo Ferrer Hernáez, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

As Max Weber said in  Politics as a Vocation, “some live for politics, and others live from politics.” There is nothing reproachable in earning money by working in political institutions. Nevertheless, in recent years the issue of “revolving doors,” which refers to the flow of politicians and public staff members between the public and the private sector, has led to growing concern because of the consequences this has on the transparency and accountability of European Union institutions.

On May 18, 2021, after several accusations of lack of transparency in the EU institutions, the European Ombudsman launched a wide-ranging inquiry into the European Commission's handling of staff revolving door cases. This blog will analyze the European Ombudsman's role in ensuring enhanced transparency and accountability in European institutions, looking at the issue of revolving doors. 

Legal framework regarding transparency 

EU law already contains provisions relating to the impartiality of the institutions of the European Union when exercising administrative functions, and allows for the creation of further provisions to achieve this objective. Article 399 TFEU establishes the obligation of the members of the European institutions to maintain professional secrecy, even after they have ceased to hold office. This provision, contained in one of the founding treaties of the EU,  provides the basis for protecting the integrity of the European institutions against conflicts of interest that may arise from the use of revolving doors. In addition, Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights underlines the importance of the right to good administration, which can be affected by the practice of revolving doors.

EU secondary legislation also addresses the issue of transparency and good administration. The EU Staff Regulations underline several provisions regarding how staff should proceed when leaving EU institutions and working for the private sector. The EU Staff Regulations oblige EU former civil servants to carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union in mind as established under Articles 16 and 17. In the performance of their new duties, former EU civil servants must not deal with matters in which they have any direct or indirect personal interest that might impair their independence. In addition, several EU institutions, such as the EU Commission, have established their own codes of conduct for staff, providing guidance on how to apply the EU Staff Regulations.

Even if these rules implement clear guidelines for protecting the integrity of the EU institutions and civil service, there is room for their  enforcement. For instance, there have been several occasions where European Union’s institutions have failed to address the issue of revolving doors.  One such example was where the former Head of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology was allowed leave to work for Vodafone, where he engaged in lobbying activities. 

The role of the EU Ombudsman in the issue of revolving doors

The European Ombudsman promotes good administration at the EU level by investigating complaints concerning EU institutions and organizations' maladministration and proactively looking into more significant systemic concerns. When the European Ombudsman determines that maladministration has occurred, her recommendations are sent to the institution or entity concerned, which has three months to respond to the European Ombudsman. If the institution rejects the recommendations, the European Ombudsman may submit a special report for consideration by the European Parliament. The European Parliament, in turn, can draft a report on the Ombudsman's special report to try to force the institution to change its behavior. 

The current revolving doors problem has caught the attention of the European Union's guardian of good administration, Emily O'Reilly. The European Ombudsman has played an active role in the revolving door phenomenon since former Commission President, José Manuel Barroso became the chairman of Goldman Sachs in 2015. The European Ombudsman already carried out a strategic inquiry between 2017 and 2019 to measure how the European Commission manages revolving door situations of its staff members. The report underlined that revolving doors may give rise to 1) conflicts of interest with the legitimate interests of the Commission; 2) the disclosure or misuse of confidential information; 3) former staff’s use of personal relationships with ex-colleagues for lobbying.

The EU Ombudsman's inquiry found that, even if the Commission generally complies with the rules governing EU staff and tries to avoid the issue of revolving doors, more can be done to enforce these rules effectively in a meaningful way, especially in the case of senior officials. As a result of this inquiry, O'Reilly made a series of suggestions to improve the implementation of these practices. 

The new inquiry to the EU Commission

Continued accusations by civil society organizations of new revolving doors cases prompted a new inquiry that started in 2020, looking more closely at how the Commission manages cases regarding a certain number of specific Commission departments, also known as directorates-generals (DGs). The Ombudsman has examined  documents related to 100 decisions adopted by the Commission in connection with applications for access to a new activity by former staff members of a designated set of DGs and services. The Ombudsman is currently waiting for the Commission to respond to certain questions regarding decisions on post-employment activities of former staff members.

The future of the consequences of the inquiry

In the words of the European Ombudsman, good management of the revolving doors issue is essential to maintain confidence in the EU institutions. Any perception that the rules are not being adequately applied risks creating doubts about whether the EU administration is acting entirely in the public interest. Therefore, although it is not yet possible to know the content of these investigations due to their confidential nature, it is likely that the inquiry will reveal potential conflicts of interest and make the necessary recommendations to put an end to these practices within the EU Commission.

Can US technology companies continue to operate in the European Union? A reflection on the Irish Data Protection Commission's preliminary decision

By: Guillermo Ferrer Hernáez, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

In its mission to protect the rights of its citizens, the European Union (EU) adopted a far-reaching piece of data legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which sets new standards for protecting the data of EU citizens. This piece of legislation, claimed to be the most robust privacy policy globally, allows EU citizens and individuals living in the EU and the European Economic Area territory to limit the collection of their personal information and control which information is shared with companies. GDPR guidelines require that the state receiving the data offers the same level of protection as the state from which the data is collected. Since the GDPR’s adoption, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on the incompatibility of certain business practices regarding data transfers, including transfers between the US and the EU and the use of Standard Contractual Clauses.  

The battle to protect European citizens' rights during data transfers will lead to further significant developments, with the EU as the leading actor, in the upcoming months. This blog will discuss the consequences of the current GDPR and the Irish Data Protection Commission’s (IDPC) preliminary decision for the future of technology companies in the EU.

The Schrems II case

In July 2020, the CJEU issued its judgment in the Schrems II case, through which it invalidated the existing data transfer arrangement between the US and EU, known as the Privacy Shield, on the grounds that the EU could not ascertain that the data of EU citizens would be safe from US government surveillance once this data is transferred to US data collection centers. Under US laws, personal data protection may be subjected to controls to the extent necessary to meet national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements. The CJEU found that US mass surveillance infringes several rights recognized under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), such as the protection of personal data identified under Article 8. Therefore, the CJEU, in July 2020, concluded that the Privacy Shield agreement could not be used for the transfer of data. 

The use of Standard Contractual Clauses

Since the CJEU's verdict, several US technology companies have relied on a different legal mechanism, known as "Standard Contractual Clauses" (SCCs) to transfer EU users' data to the US. These mechanisms are pre-approved terms and conditions for extraterritorial data transfers published by the EU Commission and include several guidelines provided in the GDPR. Even if SCCs are considered to be compliant with the GDPR, technology companies are now required to verify on a case-by-case basis if the personal data transferred through with the use of these SCCs will be adequately protected in the destination state. According to the CJEU’s verdict, these companies now have the obligation of  ensuring that the data protection law of the destination state offers a similar level of protection as established within the GDPR. The need for this additional control emerged after the CJEU found that supervisory authorities of third states are not bound by these contractual clauses. This requirement has primarily limited the action of technology companies; moreover, a future decision by the IDPC could restrict even more their activities, even putting them to an end.

IDPC's preliminary decision

A month after the Schrems II judgment, the IDPC, the EU's leading regulator of technology companies, preliminarily concluded that Meta Platforms Ireland's use of SCCs violates the GDPR's provisions and proposed that these transfers of user data be suspended. According to the IDPC, the US does not grant any rights to EU data subjects before the courts against US authorities, directly violating the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the CFR.

The IDPC gave Meta until March 22, 2022, to respond to its preliminary decision and will issue its final decision in the first half of 2022. If the IDPC ultimately decides that the use of SCCs does not comply with the GDPR, this would eliminate any transfer of data between EU and US companies, leaving technology companies no other option than to withdraw their services from the EU. In light of this possibility, the EU Commission and the US Government started negotiations to replace the former Privacy Shield agreement in line with the CJEU's verdict.

The future of the technology companies in the EU

The European Union's institutions plan to adopt several pieces of legislation in the upcoming year, such as the Digital Markets Act, to limit the power of technology companies and protect the fundamental rights of EU citizens. On March 25, 2022 the EU Commission President announced the EU's “agreement in principle” on a data transfer deal with the US. While this “agreement in principle” is, in fact, a preliminary agreement, all indications are that the final deal will align with the new legislation. Furthermore, the EU has already noted that the final agreement will be in line with the CJEU case law on data transfers, requiring any third state to provide a minimum level of data protection. The fact that the IDPC may override the use of SCCs has also contributed to the content of this future agreement, including the possibility for European citizens to go to US courts if US companies violate their privacy rights under EU law. A new movement to stricter regulation on privacy issues seems to be underway, leaving a narrower space for technology companies to operate without any limits.

Justice Has No Expiry Date - The Case of the Maya Achi Women in Guatemala

By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

 Guatemala’s recent history, and specifically the period between 1960 and 1996, is marked by a long and violent internal armed conflict, within which the rights of the indigenous Mayan population have systematically been violated. The Historical Clarification Commission was established in 1994 to determine the human rights violations that took place during the war and to clarify the history of the events that ensued. It concluded that 80% of the casualties of the conflict belonged to indigenous communities and 93% of the acts were attributable to the authorities. 

Recently, on January 24, 2022, a High Risk Court in Guatemala sentenced five ex-paramilitary Civil Self-Defense Patrols to 30 years in prison each for the commission of crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence against the Maya Achi indigenous women in the early 1980s.  This short piece considers how elements of the case align with the aims of international and regional human rights law frameworks, as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). While non-binding, the UNDRIP is considered the most comprehensive instrument outlining the rights of indigenous peoples in international law, setting minimum standards for the recognition, promotion, and protection of these rights. 

The right of access to justice 

 The right of access to justice and an effective remedy for human rights violations is enshrined in numerous instruments under international law, such as Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This right requires that perpetrators be brought to justice whilst also providing appropriate reparations for victims. Article 40 of the UNDRIP affirms the right of indigenous peoples to access justice, namely through “access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures […] as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights.” As noted in a study by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, elements of access to justice necessarily “include the right to an effective remedy, procedural fairness, and the need for States to take positive measures to enable access to justice.” At the regional level, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed the obligation of governments to guarantee the right to judicial protection of indigenous peoples and to consider the particularities of their economic and social characteristics, as well as their special vulnerability and their values and customs.

Persevering in the fight for justice

 Despite the legal framework and previous efforts, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights has commented that indigenous peoples continue to face structural racism and social exclusion, arguably undermining their fundamental rights, including the right of access to justice. In this environment, the Maya Achi women overcame many barriers to access justice, including economic barriers, discrimination, a lack of adequate protection, and delays in the administration of justice. When the case was first filed, the assistant prosecutor questioned the credibility of the survivors, asking why they chose to come forward 40 years later, ultimately expressing that these cases should not be investigated. Furthermore, when the plaintiffs successfully petitioned the pre-trial judge to hear their testimonies and admit them as evidence in 2016, this was done in a manner that has been described as traumatizing for the victims. This is because they were far from home and their communities in Guatemala City, an unfamiliar environment, where they were held alone in a room for hours prior to giving testimony. These circumstances do not consider the particular vulnerability of indigenous peoples and the economic barriers incurred due to traveling costs.

Another development hindering access to justice ensued when Judge Dominguez dismissed the central evidence that identified the perpetrators – the testimonies of the women – based on what has been described as a technicality. She noted that the document within which the victims’ lawyers requested permission to interview the women in the offices of a law firm in Rabinal, rather than the office of the Attorney General, was dated after the women had given their testimonies. Judge Dominguez also pointed to the Attorney General for not taking the women’s testimonies at their offices, even though it is common practice for prosecutors to take testimony in places they deem appropriate. The victims’ lawyer, Haydeé Valey, explained that the women were afraid to be seen going into the Attorney General’s Office in Rabinal and emphasized that the steps taken were to protect witnesses from reprisals and revictimization. Notwithstanding, those detained were released, and it was not long before they went on to threaten the women. In terms of an effective remedy and the protection of the victims, these developments do not consider their special vulnerability, and do not further their right to effective access to justice and appropriate remedies and protections. 

The plaintiffs successfully moved to recuse the judge, whom they accused of displaying anti-indigenous bias. The recusal motion noted that the decision to dismiss the charges against the accused was arbitrary and left the victims in vulnerable circumstances because their aggressors were set free without taking any safety measures to protect the women from reprisals. Ultimately, the  case was assigned to Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez of High Risk Court B and the trial began on January 5, 2022, leading to the conviction of the accused several weeks later.

Conclusion

 This case highlights two notions. First, that justice has no expiry date. In other words, the courts remain a venue for the conviction of perpetrators of international crimes, even if several decades have passed. Second, this case represents the importance of effective access to justice for indigenous peoples, especially those affected by the internal conflict in Guatemala. As the Special Rapporteur has previously noted, the disregard for the adverse impact of violations perpetrated against indigenous women negatively affects their efforts to fight for their rights and further contributes to cyclical negative patterns that perpetuate further violations against them. This also undermines the goals of the UNDRIP, and human rights law more generally, which requires that indigenous peoples are to be treated equally and should be protected. This is particularly the case because, as emphasized by the Special Rapporteur, justice is an essential component of truth, reparation and reconciliation processes.

Whilst this trial has been said to deliver “incomplete justice,” this case and the perseverance of the plaintiffs and their representatives has been welcomed by many. Commentators have specifically emphasized the importance of securing the rights of indigenous peoples and facilitating access to justice, to allow for the respect of their fundamental rights.