...This study seeks to shed light on the impacts of strategic litigation on indigenous peoples’ exercise of their rights to lands and territories [focusing] on... Kenya, Malaysia, and Paraguay...Below are the report’s principal findings.

1. In most situations, legal pleadings on behalf of indigenous peoples did not begin as “strategic litigation” per se...

2. ...[M]any interviewees described how taking legal action became a central element of their struggle, whether or not it resulted in restitution.

3. Implementation of judgements in favor of indigenous communities was uniformly poor...

4. Even if implementation was absent, winning a case proved to be significant...the fact of a win in court prompted positive feelings of empowerment, rights awareness, and self-advocacy (non-material impacts)...

5. ...litigation prompted a new interpretation of the law to counteract the lack of land rights recognition...

6. ...it is important to judge the impacts of these efforts by looking at the broader economic and social rights that...judgments may secure.

7. ...[Litigation] sometimes contributed to challenging the imbalance of power that the state and private companies uniformly enjoy over indigenous peoples.

8. Politically, strategic litigation for indigenous peoples’ land rights had limited effect on government policy...However, litigation did have a substantial impact on the work of some state institutions...

9. ...[T]here is evidence that strategic litigation substantially improved rights awareness and a sense of agency among concerned communities...

10. Strategic litigation influenced attitudes and behavior toward indigenous peoples’ right to land among external stakeholders as well...However, strategic litigation...did little to change negative and often discriminatory attitudes of non-indigenous populations...