Five documents are chained together below:

1.Declaration on Article 10 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
2.Declaration on Linguistic, Cultural and Educational Rights
3.Declaration on Collective Rights
4.General Declaration on the Rights to Land, Territory, and Natural Resources
5.Declaration on Heritage Rights

For an overview/summary, see the October 2002 issue of The C.A.C. Review.

         1. Declaration on Article 10

         Commission for Human Rights
         Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
         7th Session
         February 2002

         Reference : Third Part, Article 12 to 14 ; Fourth Part, Articles 15 to 18

         Mister President, ladies and gentlemen representatives of governments,
         Ladies and gentlemen representing indigenous peoples,

         The project of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is simply to provide a juridical reference
         point.

         I do not understand why so many States are reticent or demand a right to make reservations, refusing thus to support the
         Declaration project such that it has been redirected to the sub-commission.

         Mr. President,

         After analysing this Draft, and particularly all the articles which make reference to land or territory, such as articles 10 and
         45, I must reaffirm that the right to land and territory is a fundamental right for the survival of our peoples.

         Mr. President,

         As you already know, indigenous peoples can hardly turn to their national authorities for protection since these are the first
         to deny them their rights. In French Guyana, the territories of indigenous peoples have been put at the disposal of
         multinational corporations and even lesser enterprises. The rights of the indigenous peoples are thus frequently scorned and
         submerged in the name of "the economy".

         It matters little to States that indigenous peoples have, since time immeorial, obtained the majority of their resources from
         these territories. Whether it be in the case of the peoples of the Amazon, Asia, or any other place, each time the process is
         identical and history repeats itself : States ignore the presence of indigenous peoples.

         In Brazil, for example, the construction of the Tucurui and Itaipu dams has foced 50,000 indigenous peoples to be
         dislocated, expatriated, forced to become refugees living on the outskirts of the large urban centres, marginalized, and
         suffering all of the consequences that one can expect in such situations. It is in this way that so many indigenous peoples find
         themselves cut off from their very territories.

         Mr. President,

         The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1948 only addresses itself to individuals as such. One can very well defend
         individuals in speaking of peoples. Amongst indigenous peoples, the individual does not exist, only the group is of
         importance. If an indigenous community loses its cultural and linguistic identity, then it is more appropriate to speak in
         terms of genocide.

         And it is in this sense that the United Nations, via the sub-commission, have redirected the text of this Declaration project.

         This Declaration represents a useful juridical minimum in terms of aiding communities to develop their identities, their
         cultures and permitting them to control their territories.

         This is why I encourage governments to cooperate more fully and to take a constructive attitude in the future, so that we
         may finally conclude this Draft Declaration.

         By way of conclusion, Mr. President,

         I would add that the Federation of Autochthonous Organizations of French Guyana supports Article 10 and awaits its
         approval by the sub-commission.

         Alexis TIOUKA

         2. Declaration on Linguistic, Cultural and Educational Rights

         Commission on Human Rights
         Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
         7th session
         February 2002

         RE : Third Part, Articles 12 to 14 ; Fourth Part, Articles 15 to 18.

         Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen representatives of governments,
         Ladies and Gentlemen representing Indigenous peoples,

         I have the honour of presenting to you this general declaration on behalf of the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of
         French Guyana which represents the six indigenous peoples of French Guyana, an overseas Department of France in the
         Americas : the Wayana, Teko, Wayampi, Lokono, Palikur, and the Kali’na.

         Articles 12 to 18 in  the third and fourth part of the declaration affirm the rights of indigenous peoples to the learning of their
         cultures, languages, as well as the integratuon of these two essential components of their identity withing the educational
         system, whether public education or not.

         The indigenous peoples under France are fully inserted, without having been consulted on this point, in a debate which is
         engaging the members of the European Union: that is, that which is entailed by the European Charter on regional and
         minority languages and on which France has no clearly defined position.

         In addition, especially insofar as the future institutional arrangements of French Guyana are concerned, the question of
         linguistic rights, cultural rights, and education are all the more important. Article 33 of Law No. 2000-1207 concerning
         Overseas Departments testify to a will to protect their linguistic, cultural and educational practices, one observes that at the
         same time there is a will to register the cultures and languages of the indigenous peoples of French Guyana into the concerns
         of local authorities. However, one may interrogate the modalities and and the implementation of such a policy that has not
         yet been subjected to a veritable negotiation with indigenous peoples of the Department.

         It is essential that the French state and local authorities position themselves on this question of linguistic, cultural and
         educational rights, that they take into account Articles 12 to 14 and 15 to 18 of this draft declaration and that they include
         the indigenous peoples of French Guyana before engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this question.

         I thank you all.

         3. Declaration on Collective Rights

         Commission for Human Rights
         Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations’ Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
         7th session
         February 2002

         Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen representatives of governments,
         Ladies and Gentelemen representing Indigenous peoples,

         I have the honour of presenting to you this general declaration on behalf of the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of
         French Guyana which represents the six indigenous peoples of French Guyana, an overseas Department of France in the
         Americas : the Wayana, Teko, Wayampi, Lokono, Palikur, and the Kali’na.

         By virtue of our status as indigenous peoples, given the fact of our prior presense on the territory of French Guyana with
         respect to European colonization, we affirm that the recognition of the rights deriving from this status, the right to self
         determination, the right to land, the right to intellectual property, the right to our own judicial system, and linguistic and
         cultural rights, are all rights essential to the survival of our peoples.

         Let it be understood that the affirmation of this status as indigenous peoples in no way puts into question our status as
         citizens of the French Republic, a status which we have acquired since 1969, the date of the law of « Francization ». However
         we affirm that if it comes within the domain where the individual right must make law, in other domains the collective right
         must precede.

         Currently, however, the institutional evolution of the Department is a new point of debate, insofar as in addition to our
         negotiation with the French state we must take advantage of our rights vis-a-vis the new political and institutional forces of
         the Department, because of the existence of three documents: Law No. 2000-1207 of December 13, 2000 regarding
         Overseas Departments, the draft accord relating to the future of French Guyana voted on June 29, 2001 by the elected
         French Guyanese officials assembled in congress and, finally, the proposals of the government on the guidelines which can be
         used as a basis for an agreement on the future institutional makeup of French Guyana presented on November 22 2001 to
         the elected French Guyanese officials and advisers by the Secretariat of State for Overseas Departments.

         Let us recall that the first of these three documents, Law No. 2000-1207, contains a provision relating to the indigenous
         communities which calls on,

         "The State and local bodies to encourage the respect, protection and maintenance of the knowledge, development and
         practices of the local indigenous communities based on their traditional ways of living which contribute to the conservation of
         the natural environment and the sustainable usage of bio-diversity".

         This provision highlights a concern, at the national level, to preserve the ways of life and, therefore, the legal provisions
         affecting the indigenous communities, and in supporting the widening and the improvement of the protection granted to
         these populations.  This additional Article (Article 17 of the above-mentioned law) introduced by the Senate at the
         instigation of the Socialist group, testifies to the existence of a will to recognize the existence of the local indigenous
         communities autochtones and to protect the cultural practices related to their traditional ways of life.

         However, this will, posted in this text of law, has not apparently influenced local authorities, except very slightly, at the time
         of the drafting of the accord on the future of French Guyana.

         The aboriginals of French Guyana currently live caught in the hinges of a double conflict : on the one hand, a conflict in the
         political order owing to the achievement of certain rights within a French legal framework, and possibly soon an
         (independent) Guyanese framework as well ; on the other hand, a cultural conflict tied up with the opposition between
         diverse world views (whether those of the French or of the Creoles who hold political power in the Department, or those of
         the aboriginals) from which stems the absolute inability of common law to protect the rights of the aboriginal communities.

         The resolution of these diverse conflicts has to be subject to a meaningful conciliation between aboriginal rights and the
         rights of non-aboriginals. The need for conciliation in addition is clearly stated in various texts of which, for example, the
         twelfth subparagraph of the preamble to the Draft Declaration of the United Nations on the rights of indigenous peoples
         which affirms that "indigenous people have the right to freely determine their relationship with States, in a spirit of
         coexistence, of mutual interest and of full respect".

         However, at present, none the institutional parties concerned seems to be leaning in this direction, particularly the local
         authorities. Indeed, after having had multiple interventions on various levels (national, European and international), which
         have been successful in outlining the stakes of a true negotiation with the French state, we, as aboriginal peoples of French
         Guyana, find ourselves confronted with a local power which denies us all our rights, or almost so, and we are not included at
         any time in the decision-making structures.  In the meantime decisions are currently being made on the future of French
         Guyana which relate to essential fields for the survival of our people, specifically: land, heritage, customary law, and
         language and culture.

         The local and national councillors cannot indefinitely ignore the indigenous question in Guyana. We feel that it is the duty of
         the state, before approving any text issued by the elected officials of the Department, to resolve the indigenous
         problematique. We who one day decided to become French citizens and accepted the duties incumbent upon us that stem
         from this fact, today France has a duty toward us, to not put us in a situation of domination by an ethnic group that
         isnumerically stronger.

         I thank you all.

         4. General Declaration on the Rights to Land, Territory, and Natural Resources

         Commission for Human Rights
         Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
         7th session
         26 January 2002 to 08 February 2002

         Reference : Articles 25 to 27 of Part 6 of the Draft Declaration

         Articles 25 through 27 of the Draft Declaration affirm the right of indigenous peoples to land and territory. This right implies
         the right to conserve their traditional way of life which is intrinsically tied to land, as well as the right to the independent
         development of their lands and territories, and, above all, the right to the restitution of their lands and territories.

         Knowing that in the definition of indigeneity, and that anterior occupation of a given territory appears to be an essential
         characteristic, the question of the right to land and territory is a fundamental question concerning the future of our people.

         The Draft Declaration certainly envisages the right of indigenous people to the restitution of their lands, nevertheless it
         suggests that this restitution remains symbolic, in the form of financial compensation so as to guarantee the maintenance of
         the rights acquired by non-indigenous peoples on the alnds in question. One also observes in article 18/7 of American
         Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a similar proposal.

         Even if these texts do not guarantee a total restitution of the indigenous lands and territories to their rightful owners, they
         grant some recognition to this all the same.

         We, aboriginal peoples of Guyana, regret that this recognition does not make a presence in the relevant texts on the
         institutional future of French Guyana. We propose thus, having regard for the particular importance of land for indigenous
         peoples, and to their specific rights as recognized by the French state as demonstrated in  articles R170-56 to R170-61 of
         the Code of the Domain of the State, that the decisions concerning the future of French Guyana associate the indigenous
         communities with the regulations governing the financial domain of the State as contained in that Code.

         Let us recall that this question is not only essential to the survival of our people but also to peace on French Guyanese
         territory. The land question does indeed cause increasingly violent conflicts, in particular in the west of the Department.
         These conflicts find their source in the refusal of the state and the regional authorities to take a formal position on this
         question. If one were not to see in the near future the creation of national laws which protect the indigenous peoples, their
         resources and their survival risk being seriously threatened.  Obviously, any decision taken in this field will have to make it
         an object of discussion with the aboriginal peoples of French Guyana and will have to be based on their free and informed
         consent.

         Consequently, we affirm, once more this year, that the right to land such as is stated in articles 25 through 27 of the sixth
         part must make it a special objective of the work conducted by all the authorities and organizations working on the Draft
         Declaration.

         I thank you all.

         5. Declaration on Heritage Rights

         Commission for Human Rights
         Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
         7th session
         February 2002

         Reference : Articles 12 and 13 of the Part 3 of the Draft Declaration

         Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen representatives of governments,
         Ladies and gentlemen represeting Indigenous Peoples,

         Articles 12 and 13 of the third part of the Draft Declaration appear in the declarations of France to the United Nations as one
         of the more controversial points. Since 1997, in effect, the representative for France voiced fears about the protection of
         aboriginal traditions and customs autochtones as not being in accord with the standards relating to human rights or with
         national legislation.

         One may see in these stated worries of the French state a danger for the aboriginal peoples of this country. We fear indeed
         that France continues to impose standards on us which do not correspond with our social model.

         However, France cannot refute the fact she is signatory to a text of June 13, 1992, that of the convention on biological
         diversity adopted in Rio on May 22, 1992.  However, article 8j of the said convention stipulates that each contracting part,

         "respects, preserves and maintains knowledge, creations and practices of local aboriginal communities and local which
         embody traditional ways of life, with an interest for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and supports
         its application on a greater scale, with the agreement and the participation of the holders of this knowledge, creations and
         practices and encourages the equitable division of the benefits accruing from the use of this knowledge, creations and
         practices."

         The Rio convention is, under the terms of Article 55 of the French constitution, an authority higher than that of the law and
         we engage the state and the local authorities to take it into account in any future decision concerning the right to heritage of
         the aboriginal peoples.

         We appreciate for this reason the right values of the provision relating to the aboriginal communities that appear in Article
         33 of the Law No. 2000-1207 with respect to the Overseas Departments, but we also fear that this article is not properly
         understood, just as Article 8j of the convention on biological diversity, by the local authorities at this time of developing a
         new statute for French Guyana.

         I thank you all.