The Right to Speak and the Risk of Persecution: Indigenous Peoples at the UN Human Rights Council
The 25th meeting of the UN Human Rights Council’s 63rd session, on 24 September 2026, heard a call to release Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt. Their case formed part of a wider discussion: can Indigenous Peoples participate in international processes freely and safely?
The meeting included two consecutive discussions. Participants first continued the dialogue on reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations. They then turned to the work of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), including Indigenous Peoples’ rights in conflict and post-conflict situations.
These issues are connected. The right to participate in international processes loses its substance if engaging with them puts a person at risk of persecution.
Daria and Natalia: Among Those Whose Voices Are Being Silenced
Speaking on behalf of the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia, Yana Tannagasheva connected historical injustice with the contemporary persecution of independent representatives. She recalled Daria and Natalia’s detention and the possible prison sentences of up to 20 years, calling for their immediate release and stronger international protection for human rights defenders.
In her concluding remarks, the EMRIP Chair also articulated an important principle: meaningful Indigenous participation requires representation and decision-making authority in peace processes and post-conflict governance, rather than an advisory role alone.
Participation, Protection and State Control: Countries’ Positions
Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, emphasised Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination and meaningful participation in conflict prevention and peace processes.
The European Union specifically highlighted the need to protect Indigenous human rights defenders, journalists and community media. Brazil supported the direct participation of Indigenous representatives in decisions affecting their peoples. Canada linked Arctic security to Indigenous participation and respect for free, prior and informed consent.
Ukraine drew attention to the persecution of Indigenous Peoples in territories occupied by Russia, particularly Crimea, and to forced mobilisation.
The Russian delegation, by contrast, criticised the use of information from “biased NGOs” and urged EMRIP to seek verified information from states. It also rejected some of the study’s findings, invoking its policies against terrorism and extremism.
Disagreements also concerned recognition of Indigenous Peoples: India challenged the application of the term to its tribal communities, Japan rejected it in relation to the people of Okinawa, and representatives of the Sahel states said there were no Indigenous Peoples within their territories. The interventions are available in the UN meeting transcript.
Who Decides Which Representatives Are “Legitimate”?
The Russian organisation SOYUZ called for the exclusion of “politicisation” from Indigenous rights issues and the removal of obstacles to international participation, including those associated with sanctions. It also advocated participation by Indigenous Peoples’ “legitimate representative bodies” in international mechanisms.
RAIPON discussed restrictions on Russian Indigenous representatives’ international participation. At the same time, it questioned the mandates of some people speaking on behalf of Indigenous Peoples, without naming them.
Two questions must be distinguished here: the mandate to represent a particular people or community, and the right of an individual or organisation to express an independent position.
Indigenous Peoples must choose their own representatives through their own procedures, without appointment by ministries or direction from governments. State registration, official recognition and membership of a government delegation do not, by themselves, establish a community mandate. An independent participant is also entitled to express their own position, clearly identifying on whose behalf they speak. Government approval is not required. We previously examined this distinction in our article on two approaches to representation at EMRIP.
Claims about “legitimacy” must therefore be considered alongside the independence of those making them. The studies discussed in our analysis of RAIPON and control over representation examine organisations’ relationships with state institutions and business. Those relationships require transparency and critical scrutiny. Disagreement with a government must not become grounds for excluding independent voices from international discussion.
Participation Is Impossible Without Freedom
When some representatives can travel to international meetings while others are in prison, the presence of a delegation does not, in itself, mean that a diversity of views is being heard. The representativeness of an international discussion cannot be assessed without asking who has been deprived of the opportunity to participate.
For Daria and Natalia, this contradiction has a concrete human dimension. Their case concerns more than the personal freedom of two human rights defenders. It raises the question of how freely independent Indigenous perspectives from Russia can be expressed—including positions uncomfortable for the state.
Calls to avoid “politicisation” must not become a reason to exclude discussion of persecution. A criminal case against a human rights defender does not cease to be a human rights issue because a state considers it an internal matter.
For international mechanisms, a test of effectiveness is the ability to hear people whose participation is obstructed or impossible. Recognition of Daria and Natalia’s contribution must be accompanied by consistent demands for their freedom and protection.
Meaningful representation is measured not by the size of an official delegation, but by the freedom to speak, hold an independent opinion and do so without fear of persecution.
Comments