Cases examined by the Special Rapporteur (June 2009 – July 2010)
A/HRC/15/37/Add.1, 15 September 2010
XVIII. India: Situation of the Mapithel Dam, Manipur
201. In a letter dated 6 April 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, called the attention of the Government of India to information received in relation to the construction of the Mapithel dam (Thoubal Multi Purpose Project) in the state of Manipur, India and its effects on peoples indigenous to the area. The Government of India responded in a communication dated 24 June 2009. In light of the information received and the response of the Government, the Special Rapporteur developed observations about the situation, including a series of recommendations, which he conveyed to the Government in a communication dated 12 April 2010. The Government of India responded to these observations in a letter dated 4 June 2010. Both these observations and the Government’s response are included below.
202. The content of the Special Rapporteur’s letter of 6 April 2009 and of the Government’s response were included the Special Rapporteur’s 2009 report to the Human Rights Council (HRC/12/34/Add.1, paras 161-172). For ease of reference, a summary of the information transmitted and the of Government’s response is provided here.
203. In his letter of 6 April 2009 the Special Rapporteur transmitted information received about the construction of the Mapithel dam, which was approved in 1980 by the Central Water/ Planning Commission. Construction of the dam began in 1990, allegedly without prior consultation or the obtaining of free, prior and informed consent of the members of affected tribal communities (including the villages of Phayang, Louphong, Chadong, Lamlai Khullen, Lamlai Khunou and Mongbung, and eleven other tribal villages, making up approximately 8000 people in total) whose lands are to be submerged. The information stated that 80 percent of the affected communities directly depend on the paddy fields and surrounding forests for their subsistence, and that those who were moved to alternate farming sites have seen their crop yield go down by 90 percent as compared to their original farm sites. Additionally, it was alleged that 1000-1500 security personnel have been established in the area to protect the construction site at all hours and have imposed a 5 p.m. curfew on the villagers which has negatively affected their farming practices that require long work days during harvest time. It was alleged that women from the villages fear harassment and other abuses by the security officers, and therefore take longer routes to avoid security check points.
204. According to the information received, the government of Manipur and representatives of some of the affected villages signed a Memorandum of Agreed Terms and Conditions (MOATC) in 1993 that set out terms for relocation of the villages, the reconstruction of houses, and joint identification of lands for displaced families. However, it was alleged that not all affected villages were included in the agreement, particularly downstream communities, and those villages that were included in the agreement were not fully informed about the effects of the project. It was also reported that the MOATC provisions on compensation payments were not duly carried out by the government of Manipur since they were made later than originally agreed to and in small installments, which resulted in the inability of tribal village members to purchase alternate lands that would allow them to continue with their traditional subsistence farming activities.
205. It was alleged that in 1998, the government of Manipur changed the terms of compensation provision of the MOATC by creating a Rehabilitation and Review Program, without prior consultation or consent of the affected villages and again excluding villages in downstream areas of the dam. This action sparked protests by the members of the affected villages, and on 3 November 2008, police and security forces of the Indian Reserve Batallion, Imphal Police Commandos and Lamlai Police Station allegedly stopped the marchers from proceeding and resorted to the use of force, including firing tear-gas shots at the protesters, which resulted in 44 injured persons and one person in a coma. It is alleged that the Government has not taken any action to investigate this situation and sanction those responsible.
206. In its letter of response to the Special Rapporteur’s communication conveying the above allegations, the Government of India stated that this matter is not within the purview of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, because India’s position internationally has been that the term “indigenous” regards the entire population of the country at the time of its independence in 1947 and its successors. The Government stated that its vote for adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was based on this understanding, adding that the Declaration did not define which groups constitute indigenous peoples.
207. Notwithstanding that position on the scope of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, the Government in its response went on to address the allegations and stated that the communication sent was an “incomplete and misleading picture of the actual situation”, making reference to the MOATC signed in 1993 relating to rehabilitation, resettlement and compensation of affected villages; a joint detailed survey of lands to be submerged which was conducted in 1994 by a team of state authorities and affected villagers; and the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment and an Environment Management Plan.
208. The Government, in its response, also stated that the presence of security forces in the site of the dam was for the protection of life and property “from various unlawful armed organizations that had earlier indulged in violence at the site”. Regarding the events of 3 November 2008, the Government stated that the police had to resort to a “mild baton charge” because the protesters intended to enter the project area forcibly and started “pelting stones and pushing women constables at the site”. The response admitted that one protestor was injured and was provided Indian Rupees 30,000 for humanitarian treatment by State authorities.
209. The Government concluded its response by stating that the terms of compensation were not forced upon the villagers, nevertheless it has instituted an Expert Review Committee, made up of state authorities, experts and village representatives to review the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan of 1998. According to the Government, this Committee has held five rounds of meetings as of May 2009, and remains sensitive to the concerns expressed by various civil society organizations on this matter and has been taking appropriate measures to address any genuine grievances.
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
210. While the Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government’s responses and is pleased to hear of measures it has taken such as the Expert Review Committee, the situation faced by the tribal communities affected by the Mapithel dam nonetheless raises concerns in light of relevant international standards. The Special Rapporteur further notes that this dam is in northeastern India, which is a region of the country about which other United Nations mechanisms have expressed serious concern.  It is apparent to the Special Rapporteur that the situation faced by the affected tribal communities in the Mapithel dam site area is one that raises issues characteristic of the experiences of other indigenous peoples worldwide. In the following observations the Special Rapporteur will first address the Government’s stated position about the rubric of indigenous peoples and the scope of his mandate in regards to this situation, and then he will proceed to address the application of the relevant international standards in this case.
The rubric of indigenous peoples
211. In considering the Government of India’s response as it regards the scope of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate which concerns indigenous peoples, the Special Rapporteur does not disagree that the entire population of India at the time of its independence originates from India and that, hence, the entire present-day successor population may be considered, in a literal sense, indigenous. This does not mean, however, that there are no groups in India within the scope of the international concern for indigenous peoples as it has developed throughout the United Nations and regional human rights systems and in connection with his mandate. The Special Rapporteur respectfully submits that, to the contrary, there are many such groups in India, as in other parts of Asia, including the tribal communities affected by the Mapithel Dam.
212. In adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, State Members of the United Nations manifested their support for the Declaration’s call for affirmative and concerted measures to address the disadvantaged conditions of indigenous peoples in accordance with the human rights principles elaborated upon in that instrument. The specific relevance of the Declaration, as evident by its terms, and of the various United Nations programmes and mechanisms concerning indigenous peoples, including the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, is to those groups indigenous to a territory that are in non-dominant positions, and that have suffered and continue to suffer threats to their distinct identities and basic human rights in ways not felt by dominant sectors of society.
213. Hence, in the Asian context, the term indigenous peoples is understood to refer to distinct cultural groups such as “tribal peoples”, “hill tribes”, “scheduled tribes” or “adivasis”, who are indigenous to the countries in which they live and have distinct identities and ways of life, and who face very particularized human rights issues related to histories of various forms of oppression, such as dispossession of their lands and natural resources and denial of cultural expression. Today these groups are among the most discriminated against, socially and economically marginalized, and politically subordinated parts of the societies of their respective countries. Regardless of the controversy around issues of definition and categorization, it is apparent that Asian legal and political actors agree that there is a need to address the human rights issues facing these distinct peoples, which are issues very similar to those faced by groups unquestionably recognized as indigenous peoples in other parts of the world, and which fall within the sphere of the current international concern on the rights of these peoples.
214. Debate over the meaning and applicability of the “indigenous” rubric also exists in Africa where State governments have also argued that all Africans are indigenous or aboriginal as compared to European settlers. This debate was addressed by the Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which correctly observed, “if the concept of indigenous is exclusively linked with a colonial situation, it leaves us without a suitable concept of analyzing internal structural relationships of inequality that have persisted after liberation from colonial dominance”. Therefore, as in the African context, the understanding of the term “indigenous peoples” in the Indian and general Asian context “should put less emphasis on the early definitions focusing on aboriginality… [and instead] on the more recent approaches focusing on self-definition as indigenous and distinctly different from other groups within a state; on a special attachment to and use of their traditional land whereby their ancestral land and territory has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples; on an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination because these peoples have different cultures, ways of life or modes of production than the national hegemonic and dominant model.”
215. Although not espousing a fixed definition of the term “indigenous”, the United Nations Declaration in its preamble emphasizes the right of indigenous peoples to “be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such”, while referencing the histories of oppression against them; and in its operative article 33, the Declaration affirms the right of indigenous peoples to “determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.”
216. The affected communities belonging to the Tangkhul Naga, Kuki and Meetei  peoples in Manipur consider themselves to be distinct cultural groups with their own territories, cultures and histories. Their grievances, stemming from their distinct cultural identities and deep connection to their traditional territories” can easily be identified as the types of problems faced by other indigenous peoples worldwide with regards to the effects of development projects within their traditional lands.
217. The Special Rapporteur notes that India in its domestic law and policy recognizes tribal groups and that it is a party to International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention concerning Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, No. 107 of 1957. This multi-lateral human rights instrument, as do more recently-developed programs of the ILO, regards “indigenous” and “tribal” as constituting related conceptual categories such that the groups within these categories are beneficiaries of a common universe of human rights standards which are articulated in that Convention. This common universe of human rights standards today finds its most prominent expression in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
218. Past reports by United Nations human rights bodies have expressed concern about the territorial and other human rights problems faced by tribal groups in India. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed concern that India has not fully implemented the rights of tribal groups to ownership over the lands they have traditionally occupied and that this has lead to large scale projects such as dams being constructed in their territories without their prior informed consent (making specific reference to the state of Manipur), thus causing their forced relocation and endangering their traditional lifestyles. The same concern was expressed by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which also referred to the “lack of effective consultations and legal redress for persons [belonging to scheduled tribes] affected by displacements and by forced evictions, and the inadequate measures to provide sufficient compensation or alternative housing to those who have been removed from their ancestral lands.”
219. The previous Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people likewise expressed concern over the planned construction of 168 new dams in northeastern India without meaningful participation by or the consent of the Bodos, Hmars, Nagas and other indigenous communities that have traditionally owned the lands, and which will create irreparable harm to their traditional subsistence and livelihoods. These concerns reflect the existence of problems that call for specific solutions that respect the cultures and territorial rights of the peoples concerned; solutions that clearly fall under the scope and purpose of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that concern the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
The application of relevant international standards
220. The Special Rapporteur therefore urges the Government of India to fully take into account and endeavor to make effective the standards articulated in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the relevant provisions of other applicable international instruments, as it proceeds with the Mapithel Dam project and responds to the articulated, demands and acts of protest by tribal communities in relation to that project. The Special Rapporteur also calls to the attention of the Government of India the various provisions of the Declaration on land rights (arts. 25, 26 and 27); the duty to consult and obtain free prior and informed consent (arts. 18, 19 and 32); prompt resolution of conflicts and disputes with States and other parties (art. 40); the right to redress, restitution or just, fair and equitable compensation for lands and resources taken, occupied or used without consent of indigenous peoples (art. 28); and the duty to provide, special attention to the social and economic welfare of indigenous peoples (art. 21). As explained in his 2008 report to the Human Rights Council, the Declaration does not in any way affirm or create rights for indigenous peoples that are separate from the universal human rights that are deemed of universal application. Rather, the Declaration elaborates upon existing international human rights norms and commitments in the specific social, cultural, economic and historical contexts of indigenous peoples.
221. Thus, as made evident in the work of the relevant treaty-monitoring bodies, the standards of the Declaration concerning rights or access to lands and resources, and related to the duty of states to consult with indigenous peoples with the objective of obtaining their consent on matters affecting their particular interests, are grounded on principles of self-determination, participation, cultural integrity and non-discrimination that are found, inter alia, in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination, all treaties to which India is a party.
222. Also to be taken into account and duly applied, of course, is ILO Convention 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations, which remains binding on India. The Special Rapporteur respectfully notes that Convention 107 represents the minimum standards to be applied in India where indigenous or tribal communities are concerned. The Special Rapporteur calls to the Government of India’s attention to article 29 of the Convention, which states: “The application of the provisions of this Convention shall not affect benefits conferred on the populations concerned in pursuance of other Conventions and Recommendations.”
223. In this connection, the various statements made by United Nations treaty monitoring bodies interpreting treaties to which India is a party in relation to indigenous and minority peoples, as well as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, should be understood to supplement and shed light on the standards articulated in Convention 107.
224. Of particular relevance to the present case is article 11 of Convention 107, stating: “The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognized”; and article 12(1) providing, “The populations concerned shall not be removed without their free consent from their habitual territories except in accordance with national laws and regulations for reasons relating to national security, or in the interest of national economic development or of the health of the said populations.”
225. As already noted, the need to secure indigenous peoples’ rights of ownership in traditional lands and the requirement that they not be removed from their territories without their consent, correspond with obligations found in the above-mentioned human rights treaties, as found by the relevant treaty bodies. Additionally, the Declaration, in its articles 10 and 26, inter alia, reiterate and strengthen these standards. At the same time, the treaty bodies’ interpretations of the relevant treaties and the Declaration stress the elements of consultation and consent over any exception for national economic development, thereby diminishing the normative value of that exception as found in article 12(1) of Convention 107.
226. Article 10 of the Declaration provides:
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Related to article 10 of the Declaration is article 19, which affirms:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
227. The Special Rapporteur further respectfully refers the Government of India to his 2009 annual report to the Human Rights Council, which includes an analysis of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples and obtain their consent in appropriate circumstances (A/HRC/12/34, 12 July 2009).
228. In instances in which the removal of indigenous peoples from the traditional lands does take place, indigenous peoples are entitled to appropriate mitigation measures and compensation. Article 12(2) of ILO Convention 107 provides, in particular:
When in such cases removal of these populations is necessary as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with lands of quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. In cases where chances of alternative employment exist and where the populations concerned prefer to have compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated under appropriate guarantees.
229. This standard is reiterated in article 28 of the United Nations Declaration, and the Declaration further calls in its article 32 for appropriate measures that shall be taken to mitigate the “adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual” impacts of development projects on indigenous lands. Additionally, any claim the affected communities may have for failure to provide adequate guarantees for their rights or for failure to implement arrangements or agreements for those guarantees should be handled promptly, through appropriate administrative or judicial procedures, in keeping-with article 2(3) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms or Racial Discrimination. In the context of indigenous peoples, the Declaration provides in article 40 for the right of indigenous peoples to means of redress and prompt decision “through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights.”
230. In addition, it is axiomatic in relation to the foregoing that States must also ensure that indigenous peoples’ demands for respect of their rights and their legitimate acts of social protest in defense of those rights, are not interpreted out of context and be subjected to criminal procedures or national security measures intended for other social or political phenomena such as armed insurgencies or terrorism. This is a matter of concern in the present context since the construction of the Mapithel dam is occurring in a region where the State is applying the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which provides for extraordinary law enforcement and security powers, the use of which has come under criticisms by United Nations treaty-monitoring bodies. The Government has stated that security forces are present in the construction site due to unlawful armed organizations that had earlier engaged in violence at the site, yet it would seem that their presence has resulted in the intimidation of local tribal village members and the suppression of their dissatisfaction over the process of construction of the dam and relocation.
231. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed concern over how the unlimited powers enjoyed by national security forces particularly affect tribal peoples in Manipur and other northeastern States and recommended the repeal of this Act. Notwithstanding the complexity of the ethnic and political tensions in the northeast, the Special Rapporteur would emphasize, as stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee that “the problems in areas affected by terrorism and armed insurgency are essentially political in character and that the approach to resolving such problems must also, essentially, be political, and…that terrorism should be fought with means that are compatible with [international human rights standards].” The Special Rapporteur considers that an essential component of the political solutions required in the northeast is the proper respect for the rights of the region’s indigenous peoples to the legal recognition and protection of their territorial rights and the right to be consulted regarding any measure or development activity that affects their rights and interests to their lands.
232. In addition, access to justice also requires that the State ensure that members of indigenous peoples and human rights defenders who support them are protected against any violence, threats, retaliation, pressure or any arbitrary actions as a consequence of their activities. As the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended, the State should improve its human rights training for members of its security forces and ensure that all allegation of human rights violations are promptly and thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. The Committee further noted a need for strengthening of the criminal justice system in order to investigate, prosecute and sanction violations of the rights of indigenous peoples under the 1989 Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and expand preventive programs to curb violence against people belong to these particular groups, especially women.
233. The Special Rapporteur respectfully urges the Government of India to give special attention to the situation of the Mapithel dam in the state of Manipur and its effects on the peoples indigenous to the area of the dam, and make every effort to reach an agreement with all affected indigenous groups in order to come to a satisfactory solution for the concerns of both the Government and the affected communities. In this effort, due regard should be given to the land, cultural and other rights of the affected communities, and to their social and economic wellbeing, in accordance with the abovementioned international standards.
234. The Special Rapporteur also urges the Government of India to ensure that any alleged abuses committed by the police or other state security forces against members of the communities affected by the Mapithel dam are fully and promptly investigated, that sanctions are imposed against the agents responsible for any such human rights violation, and that appropriate reforms and preventative measures are in place to ensure against the recurrence of such incidents.
Response of the Government to the observations of the Special Rapporteur
235. In a letter dated 4 June 2010, the Government of India responded to the observations of the Special Rapporteur. In its response the Government stated, in summary:
a) The entire population of India is considered by the Government to be indigenous to the country and, therefore, this issue does not fall within the scope of the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ mandate. Despite having acknowledged that the entire population is indigenous in his communication of 24 June 2009, the Special Rapporteur has sought to introduce exceptions for certain groups based on characteristics which are similar to experiences of other indigenous populations elsewhere. It is unacceptable that the Special Rapporteur should seek to impose his definition of indigenous peoples on the Government.
b) A precise definition of indigenous peoples has not been included in the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples that was adopted after 22 years of prolonged negotiations. Thus, any attempt to produce a definition now is neither desirable nor productive. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur’s should not attempt to expand the application of the Declaration to unrelated groups, like the tribal peoples in India, through his interpretation of experiences of what he calls other indigenous peoples.
c) India is an open society based on rule of law, and any violation of human rights is contrary to India’s state policy and subject to scrutiny and redress. The incidents of violence India are neither ignored nor condoned. An independent judiciary constantly examines any violation of human rights and holds the State accountable by providing appropriate relief.
Additional observations by the Special Rapporteur
236. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the response of the Government of India, but regrets to note that the response is limited to a reiteration of the Government’s position that international standards and mechanism devoted to indigenous peoples, including the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, do not apply to groups in India. This position is made without addressing the reasoning of the Special Rapporteur to the contrary or the human rights issues raised.
237. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that he cannot avoid making principled assessments about the scope of his mandate in relation to particular groups in the course of addressing human rights concerns that are brought to his attention. Far from imposing his own definition, the Special Rapporteur looks to the objectives and human rights principles underlying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the practice of the multiple United Nations and regional mechanisms and programs addressing indigenous issues. This approach is reflected in his determination that the matter addressed in the foregoing exchange of communications falls within the scope of his mandate.
238. Consistent with the terms of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur cannot simply accept without independent inquiry general assertions that particular groups are not within his mandate. Nor does he consider that the question of whether or not a particular group is indigenous or subject to considerations as such is a question that can be left entirely to the subjective determination of States. The very human rights principles that undergird international concern for indigenous peoples, and an understanding about the context in which indigenous issues arise in connection with those principles, instead must guide assessments of this type.
239. The Special Rapporteur hopes that the Government of India will reconsider its position in this regard and that, in any event, it will work diligently toward ensuring full and adequate responses to the human rights issues raised in relation to the Mapithel dam project.
 See, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: India. 04/08/97. CCPR/C/79/Add.81; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: India (5 May 2007). CERD/C/IND/CO/19; and Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: India (May 2008), E/C.12/IND/CO/5.
 SeeReport of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, General considerations on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples in Asia, A/HRC/6/15/Add.3 (1 November 2007) [hereinafter “Stavenhagen Report”], paras. 5-9.
 Ibid., para. 9.
 See,ACHPR, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations Communities, Submitted in accordance with the “Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa”, Adopted by The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights at its 28th ordinary session (2005), p.92.
 Ibid., pp. 92-3 (emphasis in the original).
 According to the information received, the Tangkhul Naga and Kuki are classified as tribal peoples, while the Metes are classified as non-tribal, although some Metes are demanding tribal status.
 See Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: India (5 May 2007) CERD/C/IND/CO/19, paras. 10, 19.
 See Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: India (May 2008) E/C.12/IND/CO/5, paras. 31, 71.
 Stavenhagen Report, para. 24.
 A/HRC/C/9/9 (11 August 2008), para. 40.
 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its General Recommendation No. 23 (1997) on Indigenous Peoples, provides for the duty of States to “Ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent.” (CERD/C/51/Misc.13/Rev.4), art. 4, para. (d); See also Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, S/HRC/12/34 (15 July 2009), paras. 38-42 (on the normative grounding and general character of the duty to consult).
 See Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: India. 04/08/97. CCPR/C/79/Add.81; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: India (5 May 2007); CERD/C/IND/C0/19; Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: India (May 2008) E/C.l2/IND/CO/5.
 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: India (5 May 2007), para. 12.
 Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: India. 04/08/97, supra, para. 18.
 See, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: India (May 2008), para. 50.
 Ibid., para 50.
 Ibid., para 53.