A/HRC/42/55 implementation. He conveyed the Mechanism’s hope that its studies would become living documents that were used in the daily work and advocacy of stakeholders for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. 49. States, indigenous peoples and other participants commented on the previous studies undertaken by the Expert Mechanism, in particular the follow-up study on access to justice (A/HRC/27/65) and the study on free, prior, and informed consent (A/HRC/39/62). In regard to the former, participants highlighted the increasing criminalization of indigenous persons with disabilities, the disproportionate risk of indigenous persons with disabilities experiencing all forms of violence and the frequent discrimination they suffered. In regard to the latter, it was stressed that free, prior and informed consent was a manifestation of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination of their political, social, economic, and cultural priorities. Free, prior, and informed consent was also interpreted within the field of the inherent dignity of peoples, including in the case of peoples living in voluntary isolation. VIII. Country engagement 50. Member of the Expert Mechanism Ms. Vars opened agenda item 6, explaining the country engagement aspects of the Mechanism’s amended mandate. Under the new mandate, she indicated that the Mechanism was charged with assisting States and indigenous peoples to realize the aims of the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, including by providing technical advice and facilitating dialogue at the request of Member States or indigenous peoples. The Mechanism could also support States in the implementation of recommendations made by other human rights mechanisms in relation to the human rights of indigenous peoples, and provide a deeper analysis of the practical implementation of those recommendations. She was joined on the panel by representatives of States and indigenous peoples who had participated in recent country engagements, as described below. 51. Representatives of New Zealand and Maori participated as panellists during the discussion of agenda item 6. The Expert Mechanism undertook a mission to New Zealand from 8 to 13 April 2019, in response to a request from the Aotearoa Independent Monitoring Mechanism on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission. Two members of the Mechanism, Ms. Vars, Vice-Chair and Head of Mission and Mr. Mansayagan, as well as staff of the OHCHR secretariat, participated in the mission. In accordance with the methods of work of the Mechanism, terms of reference were drawn up in consultation with the parties in advance of the country engagement. The purpose, as agreed upon by both parties, was to provide advice on the drafting of a national action plan on achieving the ends of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in New Zealand, with a particular focus on identifying how Maori would partner in the process of planning, developing and implementing the action plan. Following the mission, the Expert Mechanism transmitted a written advisory note to the parties. The note is a public record of the mission and can be found on the webpage of the Mechanism for the twelfth session. Representatives from New Zealand and Maori spoke to agenda item 6, highlighting the positive engagement with the Expert Mechanism and their appreciation of the advisory note which would assist them in the process of developing a plan of action. 52. Representatives from Finland and the Sami parliament also took part in the meeting on agenda item 6 as a follow-up to the mission undertaken by the Expert Mechanism to Finland in 2018. The aim of that mission was to facilitate dialogue between the Government of Finland and the Sami Parliament, and to advise on the revision of the act on the Sami Parliament. The negotiations over the draft Act are ongoing and will be affected by decisions this year of the Human Rights Committee, which found violations by Finland with respect to, inter alia, the right of the Sami to political participation in conjunction with their right to self-determination (see, for example, CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015). 10