A/HRC/33/42 peoples’ property rights, these conditions imply that good-faith consultations must be held to obtain free, prior and informed consent before any measures affecting those property rights can be considered legitimate. 35. Inadequate respect and protections for indigenous peoples’ land and free, prior and informed consent rights when granting rights to investors over their territories are the root causes for subsequent and broader violations of indigenous peoples’ rights. In such contexts, international investment agreements that fail to recognize international human rights law obligations contribute to the subordination of indigenous peoples’ rights to investor protections, as those protections become an obstacle to future recognition of indigenous peoples’ pre-existing rights. 36. In order to address the perverse situation that arises when indigenous peoples are prevented from realizing their land and resource rights owing to protections afforded to investors, a former Special Rapporteur has stressed: That resolving [indigenous peoples’] land rights issues should at all times take priority over commercial development. There needs to be recognition not only in law but also in practice of the prior right of traditional communities. The idea of prior right being granted to a mining or other business company rather than to a community that has held and cared for the land over generations must be stopped, as it brings the whole system of protection of human rights of indigenous peoples into disrepute.8 37. International investment agreements that have facilitated and protected investments in indigenous territories are often accompanied by the deployment of military and private security services. The effects of this are a major concern in many jurisdictions, in particular those with histories of low-intensity conflict. As a result, under international human rights law, and as reflected in article 30 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, military activities should not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed to or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned. 9 However, such security presences are effectively mandated under certain existing interpretations of the provisions of such agreements on full protection and security, leading to a direct conflict between international investment law and international human rights law. 38. In some cases, international investment agreements, and measures deemed necessary to facilitate their implementation, have triggered large-scale conflict and significant loss of life. On 1 January 1994, when the North American Free Trade Agreement came into effect and triggered privatization of indigenous peoples’ communal lands, the Zapatista National Liberation Army, composed of indigenous peoples from Chiapas, initiated an armed rebellion, calling the Agreement a “death sentence” for indigenous peoples. 39. Some 14 years later, the free trade agreement between the United States and Peru was used as a pretext for a series of neo-liberal legislative decrees, 10 of which had seriously negative implications for Amazonian indigenous peoples’ territorial rights. The refusal of the Government of Peru to accept proposals made by indigenous peoples triggered mobilization, resulting in the tragic deaths of 30 people when the military was deployed in response. 40. Consideration of investor-State dispute settlement claims where indigenous peoples’ rights are involved affords the opportunity to assess the practices of tribunals, the 8 9 See E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3, para. 67 (e). See A/HRC/24/41/Add.3, para. 50. 9