III.

THE HARVESTING OF THE YACK IN RAKKAB VIOLATES THE

CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF AUROK, THEREFORE
THE STATE OF RAKKAB SHOULD PROHIBIT THE HARVESTING FORTHWITH

It shall be demonstrated that (A) the people of Aurok should be considered indigenous and
consequently enjoy their specific rights, in order to make evident that the (B) cultural and
religious rights of the Aurokans are violated, hence the hunting must be prohibited forthwith. In
addition to that, (C) interim measures appear suitable to our case, in order to prevent the
extinction of the yak.

A. Applicant argues that the people of Aurok should be considered indigenous under
international law and therefore should enjoy the specific rights recognised under the
international human rights law of “indigenous people”.
The term allows the protection of the various forms of indigenous people1 that are to be
identified as descendants of the people that owned a geographical region, at the time it was
conquered or colonised2. Also, they distinguish themselves through their economic, cultural and
social status.3 The status of the people of Aurok is influenced by their own customs, traditions and
their descent from the populations which inhabited4 the geographical region.5
The Pivzao civilization arose in the Gaur Highlands in 1000 BCE6, being conquered by the
Kingdom of Jeramia7 in 1730. Therefore, it can be stated that this condition is met, considering
the fact that Aurokans, as descendents of the Pivzao civilization, have passed on their traditions8.
The Pivazo’s self-identification of their indigenous status and their attachment to their land
and natural resources9 shall be the decisive factors when trying to figure out if a group of people

1
UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, Preamble
2
Länsman and ors v Finland, Merits, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc
CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, (1995) , para 9.7; UN CONVENTION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
ART.1 POINT 1(B)
3
ILO
4
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. the Republic of Kenya, para 181, p.54;
5
COMPROMIS PARA 3-5;
6
COMPROMIS PARA 2
7
Compromis para 6
8
Compromis, para.7;
9
Para 109, pg 31-32 African Commission on Human and People's Rights v. Kenya; . United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 26;
 shall be regarded as indigenous.10 The attachment of their culture to the only important natural
resource11, that is the Yack, is undisputable. For these reasons, Applicant will rely on the rights
conferred to the indigenous’ by the relevant international law sources.

B. The harvesting is a violation of the cultural and religious rights of the Aurokans.
It is Applicant’s contention that the (1) cultural and (2) religious rights of the people of
Aurok were violated in the context of the harvesting.

1. The cultural rights of the indigenous are violated under international Covenants.
Rakkab violated the cultural and religious rights of the people of Aurok protected under (a)
Article 15 1 (a) (of the COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL rights , (b) the
International Labor Organization Convention (Nº 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples,
Article 14.

a. Rakkab violated the cultural under Article 15 1 (a) (of the COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL rights.
Article 15 1 (a) (of the COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL rights)
Generates the right of people to take part in their cultural life.
Given the fact that Applicant has demonstrated that the people of Aurok shall be regarded
as indigenous12, it will be argued that the cultural rights shall be interpreted in accordance with the
international provisions referring to the rights of the indigenous. The declaration on the rights of
indigenous people imposes a specific obligation of providing effective mechanisms in order to
prevent actions that would deprive indigenous people of their cultural values.13 These methods of
protection should be taken especially when it comes to the cultural rights of indigenous people.14
With respect to the harvesting of animals, the only actions of the State which minimize the

10
UN CONVENTION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ART 1 POINT 2
11
Compromis para 6
12
See supra definition paragraph
13
UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, ARTICLE 8, POINT
2( A).
14
Idem, PARA 7
endangering of indigenous peoples’ hunting customs shall be allowed.15 Hence, the State Parties
should both take action and abstain from the actions which might endanger the access of Aurokans
to their cultural life.16 Access to the cultural life means allowing people to enjoy a way of life
associated with cultural goods, natural resources17 and others18.
Specifically, people of Aurok are in danger to be deprived of the Yack. It should be
observed that the harvesting of the Yak was encouraged, by offering substantial rewards and
granting hunting licenses19. To conclude, there is no evidence that the state of Rakkab took
any measure in order to effectively reduce the hunting of the Yack.
In addition to that, it should be taken into consideration that YLSA’S latest report
revealed that, at the current rate, Yack might cease to exist in approximately 20 years20.
Applicant’s concern is that considering the fact that DORTA’s agents killed a number of
28,500 Yak during the months of January and February of the year 201821 , the only
reasonable measure would not only be the prohibition the hunting forthwith, but also to
apply the appropriate interim measures (to be presented)
Applicant wishes to specify that when it comes to protecting cultural rights, specific
measures22 must be taken in order to ensure the effective participation of the members of a
group in decisions which might affect them23 and the Pivzao were not included.24

15
Länsman and ors v Finland, Merits, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc
CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, (1995) , para 9.7
16
General comment No. 21 Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) PAGE 2 PARA 6

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO DECISIONS

17

ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION: THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF

WHAT RIGHTS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAVE IN LANDS AND RESOURCES PP 7-8
18
General comment No. 21 Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) PAGE 4, para 15 point B
19
Compromis para 23
20
COMPROMIS PARA 27
21
Compromis, para 46
22
ROGER O'KEEFE, THE "RIGHT TO TAKE PART IN CULTURAL LIFE" UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE
ICESCR, pp. 910-922;
 b. Rakkab violated the cultural under the International Labor Organization
Convention (Nº 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

The protection of cultural rights is upheld by the ILO 169 convention 25 and Rakkab, as
party26, was bound to promote and protect the cultural rights of the indigenous. Cautionary
measures27, which Respondent failed to implement28, must be taken in order to ensure effective
protection.29 Also, States must be held liable even when the breach is carried out by a private
entity, rather than the state.30 For example, Ecuador was accountable for violations of the
Kichwa’s rights given the state’s authorization allowed a private company to perform acts
which impaired the group.31
Given the longevity of the ownership of the Yack32, and its magnitude on the
Aurokan’s cultural and religious aspects of life33, it is not viable to claim that the killing of
thousands of Yack annually would not infringe the obligations imposed by the aforementioned
declaration.
Applicant contends that Rakkab, like the other States 34 that failed to fulfil their
obligations under the convention, must be held liable for infringing the cultural rights of the
Aurokans.
2. The harvesting is a violation of the religious rights of the Aurokans under Article
18 of the of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

23
Länsman and ors v Finland, Merits, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, (1995) ,
para 9.5
24
Compromis para 13;
25
ILO Convention No. 169, articles 2 and 5;
26
Compromis para 48;
27
SeePress Release, Amazon Watch, ILO Says Brazil Violated Convention 169 in Belo Monte
Case (Mar. 7, 2012), available athttp://amazonwatch.org/news/2012/0307-ilo-says-brazil-violated-
convention-169-in-belo-monte-case (summarizing an ILO report claiming that Brazil had violated Article 15
of ILO Convention 169 by failing to hold hearings in the villages of the indigenous groups affected by Belo Monte’s
development).
28
Compromis para 33-35;
29
Saramaka People v Suriname, IACtHR Series C No 172 (28 November 2007) para 137.
30
See supra.
31
Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and Reparations, Judgment, Inter-
Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 245 (June 27, 2002), para. 187-188;
32
COMPROMIS PARA 1
33
Compromis para 7
34
Joisael Alves v. General Director of the Alcântara Launch Centre Judgment no.
027/2007/Jcm/Jf/mA, Case no. 2006.37.00.005222-7 (Feb. 13, 2007);
 The ICCPR ratified by the States- that protects the right to a religious belief, a right
state parties cannot derogate from even in time of public emergency35, as article 4 stipulates36.
This article includes the right to manifest a religion in worship, observance, practice and
teaching.37
Applicant is specifically concerned about the right to worship, which covers inter alia the
ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as the use of rituals and
objects.38 In the Case Concerning the Temple Preah Vihear it was recognised that objects
situated on the territory of another State may be considered as having a ceremonial value in
religious rituals in a another State.39 In addition to that, indigenous people are entitled to use and
control their ceremonial objects, at their own will.40
Bearing in mind that religious rights are both individual41 and a collective rights42 and the
Yack is the only sacred entity of the Aurokans, when if it migrates on the territory of Rakkab
aswell, and its extinction would lead to catastrophically effects on individuals and on the group.
Therefore, according to the PCIJ’s Advisory Opinion43 on similar issues, Rakkab must consider
the special needs of a group and protect these needs under its legal system.44
Applicant’s contention is that the state of Rakkabi should also forbid any activities that
might endanger45 the Yack, irrespective of the decision of this Court on whether DORTA’S
actions are attributable to the state of Rakkab.
.

35
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMENT ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, PARA 1, PAGE 1
36
COVENANT ON CIVIL & POLITICAL RIGHTS PART 2 PAGE 174, ART 4.2
37
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMENT ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, PARA. 3-6, PAGE 2-3;
38
Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of
Endorois Welfare Council) v. Kenya, para. 165
39
Case Concerning the Temple Preah Vihear(Cambodia v Thailand), 1962 ICJ 6 (1962);
40
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMENT ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER
ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, PARA 4, PAGE 2;
41
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2004
ICJ136.
42
Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools), Germany v Poland, Judgment,
(1928) PCIJ Series A no 15, ICGJ 253 (PCIJ 1928), 26th April 1928, Permanent Court of
International Justice (historical) [PCIJ];
43
Minority Schoolsin Albania, Advisory Opinion, Series A/B, No 64 (1935);
44
Germanyv Poland,PCIJ SeriesA, No.15,35;
45
(PARA. 7 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities), 8
April 1994, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5)
 C. Request for the indication of provisional measures
1. Introduction
Provisional measures are requested in this case to protect against further, irreparable harm to
the economic, cultural and religious rights of Aurok and the Pivzao civilization, which continue to
be compromised with impunity. Applicant requests that the Court indicate provisional measures
to protect and preserve these rights from any further harm and to prevent aggravation or extension
of the dispute, pending the determination of the merits of the issues raised by the Special
Agreement.
2. Facts supporting the request

On 2 January 2018, DORTA publicly announced that it was again offering payment for Yak
gallbladders, but only to registered agents of the company.
By 31 January 2018, more than 200 Rakkabis signed one-year contracts that committed DORTA
to pay for gallbladders upon delivery, obligated the hunters to abide by all relevant Rakkabi
laws, and capped DORTA’s annual harvest at 30,000 Yak.
During January and February 2018, YLSA’s annual survey indicated that DORTA agents killed
approximately 28,500 Yak.
Apart from the license granted to DORTA, between December 2017 and the present date, the
Rakkabi Ministry of Agriculture has issued licenses to 20 individuals to hunt Yak.

3. Conditions for provisional measures

a. Irreparability
In the South-Eastern Greenland case, the criterion concerning irreparability was considerably
broadened in that the PCIJ stated that provisional measures are required when ‘the damage
threatening [the rights in dispute] would be irreparable in fact or in law’.46 This is the case of the
Aurokan people, since the imminent extinction of the Kayleff Yak will bring the indigenous
people’s whole belief and religion to an end since they are intimately intertwined with the
existence of the Yak.47
b. Urgency

46
Para 40, pp. 3098-3099, Commentary on the ICJ Statute;
47
Compromis, para. 1.
 Urgency contains a time-factor and is to be understood in the sense ‘that action prejudicial to
the rights of either party is likely to be taken before such final decision is given’.48 It is a matter of
public knowledge that it can take years before disputes brought before the ICJ are given a final
judgment. It is Applicant’s contention that given the fact that the Rakkabi people killed over 28
500 Yak in the time span of two months and the fact that the present population of Yah comprises
around 680 000, it is only a matter of time before the Yak becomes in extreme danger of
extinction.
4. Conclusion
Taking into account the arguments presented above and the fact that our present Case meets
the conditions for the indication of provisional measures, Applicant respectfully asks the Court to
order the indication of such measures, as it is empowered by Article 41 of the ICJ Statute.

48
Para 45, pp. 3105, Commentary on the ICJ Statute