A/HRC/24/38 313. A crucial question relates to the desirability of an international adjudication mechanism to handle claims or complaints from indigenous peoples, in particular those arising from treaties and constructive arrangements with an international status. 314. The Special Rapporteur is quite familiar with the reticence expressed time and again, by States towards the question of taking these issues back to open discussion and decisionmaking by international forums. In fact, he might even agree with them that for certain issues (for example, disputes not related to treaty implementation and observance) it would be more productive to keep their review and decision exclusively within domestic jurisdiction until this is completely exhausted. 315. However, he is of the opinion that one should not dismiss outright the notion of possible benefits to be reaped from the establishment of an international body (for example, the proposed permanent forum of indigenous peoples) that, under certain circumstances, might be empowered - with the previous blanket acquiescence, or acquiescence on an ad hoc basis, of the State concerned - to take charge of final decision in a dispute between the indigenous peoples living within the borders of a modern State and non-indigenous institutions, including State institutions. 316. At any rate, the Special Rapporteur recommends that a United Nations-sponsored workshop be convened, at the earliest possible date and within the framework of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, to open an educated discussion on the possible merits and demerits of the establishment of such an international body. 317. One last point on the subject: with the growing international concern about all human rights and related developments, one element appears very clear in the mind of the Special Rapporteur: the more effective and developed the national mechanisms for conflict resolution on indigenous issues are, the less need there will be for establishing an international body for that purpose. The opposite is also true: the non-existence, malfunctioning, anti-indigenous discriminatory approach or ineffectiveness of those national institutions will provide more valid arguments for international options. This may be one of the strongest arguments possible for the establishment (or strengthening) of proper, effective internal channels for the implementation/observance of indigenous rights and conflict resolution of indigenous-related issues. 318. Another recommendation which it seems timely to address to State institutions empowered to deal with indigenous issues is that, in the decision-making process on issues of interest to indigenous peoples, they should apply and construct (or continue to do so) the provisions of national legislation and international standards and instruments in the most favourable way for indigenous peoples, particularly, in cases relating to treaty rights. In all cases of treaty/agreement/constructive arrangement relationships, the interpretation of the indigenous party of the provisions of those instruments should be accorded equal value with non-indigenous interpretation of the same provisions. 319. The Special Rapporteur also recommends the fullest possible implementation in good faith of the provisions of treaties/agreements between indigenous peoples and States, where they exist, from the perspective of seeking both justice and reconciliation. In the event that the very existence (or present-day validity) of a treaty becomes a matter of dispute, a formal recognition of that instrument as a legal point of reference in the State's relations with the peoples concerned would contribute greatly to a process of confidencebuilding that may bring substantial benefits. In this context, the completion of the ratification process of draft treaties/agreements already fully negotiated with indigenous people is strongly recommended by the Special Rapporteur. 320. In the case of obligations established in bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded by States - to which indigenous peoples are third parties - that may affect those peoples, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the State parties to such instruments seek the free and 42