A/HRC/14/38 obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and could jeopardize peace and security among peoples and harmonious coexistence. 46. The expert also indicated that the notion of peoples had undergone important developments in the African and in the Latin American contexts. For instance, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was the first regional human rights treaty to incorporate the notion of peoples’ rights. Moreover, Latin American countries had been actively pursuing efforts to provide the notion of indigenous peoples with adequate substance in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In that respect, the development of the notion of indigenous peoples, for example, was significant because it recognized, among other things, their right to their traditionally owned or occupied lands. 47. Finally, Ms. Dah stated that there was an urgent need to codify the right of peoples to peace, and that all actors should support moves in that direction, in particular States participating in the non-aligned movement that were current members of the Human Rights Council. In that respect, she supported the idea to invite the Council to create an openended working group charged with the codification of such right. V. Session 4: Measures and actions to raise awareness and to promote the right of peoples to peace 48. Laurent Goetschel, Director of Swisspeace, opened the last session by stating that there were three sectors in which civil society organizations were working to make the right to peace operational. The first area was the area of dealing with the past. In that respect, mechanisms such as truth commissions had proven to be useful means to achieve peace in post-conflict societies and to ensure that the rights of victims were protected. The second was the right to compensation, which included not only financial reparation, but also acknowledgment of past violations or accountability for perpetrators. The right to participation in such processes was important and all groups needed to be included. Therefore, capacity-building was essential for discriminated or marginalized groups to be able to participate in those processes. The third issue was related to statehood. The debates on rights were framed by a certain definition of state and of statehood. That implied that there was a right to recognition, not of groups of people per se, but of various forms of political life and organization. Finally, from a peace process perspective, it was dangerous to confuse law and legal processes with politics and policy processes. To bring political issues into the realm of the discussions of the right to peace was not constructive and did not contribute to the clarification of such a right. 49. UNESCO representative Luis Tiburcio recalled that UNESCO had dealt with the question of the right to peace in the 1990s. The organization had developed a document on the right to peace which had met with two elements of resistance. On the one hand, a political element, driven by Western developed States, which had stated that UNESCO was not the proper forum in which to discuss that right and that it should rather be discussed in the Security Council. That opposition had led to a confrontation in the Executive Board and General Conference of UNESCO. With regard to the second element, States had questioned how the notion of peace was covered by the organization’s mandate. Mr. Tiburcio pointed out that the preamble to the UNESCO constitution stated that war was born in the minds of men; therefore, peace had been set as the ultimate objective of UNESCO, through its work done in the fields of science, education and cultural diversity. 50. Mr. Tiburcio recalled that when UNESCO had launched the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001–2010), there had been a strong reservation on the part of some States that criticized the rather limited GE.10-12138 13