A/HRC/21/24 parliaments, assemblies, councils or other bodies representing the indigenous peoples concerned, to ensure effective participation at all levels of the United Nations. 5. The present report is informed by submissions received from States, indigenous peoples’ organizations and non-governmental organizations in response to a call for contributions from OHCHR.1 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international human rights instruments inform the approach taken herein. 6. The purpose of the present report is to consider methods of improving indigenous peoples’ participation across the United Nations system, building on and strengthening established practices. It is prepared without prejudice to the existing mechanisms for indigenous peoples’ participation at the United Nations, such as those established by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. II. Need to enable participation by indigenous peoples’ representatives in the United Nations Qualitative and functional differences between indigenous peoples’ organizations and non-governmental organizations A. 7. As the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has recognized, indigenous peoples’ organizations are, in general, qualitatively and functionally different from non-governmental organizations in purpose, design and constituency. For example, indigenous peoples’ organizations, even where they are not traditional in form, often represent indigenous individuals, families, extended families and collectives, who often share ancestry. As such, membership of an indigenous organization can be hereditary and, in some cases, based on indigenous legal and cultural norms. Many indigenous peoples’ institutions have considerable responsibilities towards their members, including in relation to cultures, lands, territories and resources. 8. In many cases, indigenous peoples’ organizations have been constitutionally, legally and/or politically acknowledged by the relevant State. For example, some States recognize the inherent and residual sovereignty of indigenous peoples and/or the continuing jurisdiction of indigenous peoples’ governance institutions over their peoples. In others, the State enters into negotiations with indigenous authorities representing indigenous peoples to provide redress for indigenous peoples’ historical grievances. In yet other cases, States and indigenous peoples have established modern legal and political institutions to recognize indigenous peoples’ self-determination and/or self-government and also as a means to enable the representation of indigenous peoples in the State’s broader governance structure, especially in relation to matters that specifically affect the indigenous peoples concerned. On the other hand, some indigenous peoples’ organizations are not recognized by States, either because their status as indigenous peoples is denied or because the State does not recognize indigenous peoples’ political institutions. 9. The purposes of many indigenous peoples’ institutions may include public governance of their peoples and/or territories, often in accordance with indigenous laws and traditions, meaning that they cannot appropriately be defined as non-governing. As such, even where it might be possible for an indigenous peoples’ organization to seek 1 4 See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/ConsultationonIPparticipationintheUN.aspx.