160. Based on all the above, one of the fundamental guarantees to ensure the participation of indigenous peoples and communities in decisions regarding measures that affect their rights and, in particular, their right to communal property, is precisely the recognition of their right to consultation, which is established in ILO Convention No. 169, and other complementary international instruments.178 161. On other occasions,179 this Court has indicated that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve over time and reflect current living conditions. This evolutionary interpretation is consistent with the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well as in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thus, the Court has stated that, when interpreting a treaty, it is necessary to take into account not only the agreements and instruments formally related to it (Article 31(2) of the Vienna Convention), but also the system of which it forms part (Article 31(3) of this instrument).180 This Court has also considered that it could “address the interpretation of a treaty provided it is directly related to the protection of human rights in a Member State of the inter-American system,”181 even if that instrument does not belong to the same regional system of protection.182 Thus, the Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Convention in the light of domestic law concerning the rights of members of the indigenous and tribal peoples in cases involving Nicaragua,183 Paraguay184 and Suriname,185 for example, also taking into account ILO Convention No 169.186 Constitution is related to a progressive effort of historical construction, during which it is essential that the public domain, and with this the political system, are open to constant recognition of new social actors. Consequently, it is only possible to speak of a true, representative and participative democracy when the formal and substantive composition of the system maintains an adequate correlation to the diverse forces of which society is composed, and allows all of them to participate in the adoption of decisions that concern them. This is particularly important in a social rule of law, which presupposes the existence of a profound interrelationship between the traditionally separate concepts of “State” and “Civil Society,” and which seeks to overcome the traditional notion of democracy, seen simply as formal government of the majority, in order to better adapt it to the reality and include within the public debate, as active subjects, different social groups, minorities or those in the process of consolidation, thereby fostering their participation in decision-making processes at all levels. 178 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 134. Also see ILO Convention No. 169, articles 6 and 17, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 19, 30(2), 32(2) and 38. 179 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/97 of November 14, 1997. Series A No. 15, para. 114, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), Merits, para. 193, and Case of the G me Pa uiyauri rothers. Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No 110, para. 165. 180 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, para. 113; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, paras 192 and 193, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 78. 181 “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, para. 21; Interpretation of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 44, and Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 22. 182 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, para. 22. See also The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, para. 109, and “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), paras. 14, 32 and 38. Furthermore, “no good reason exists to hold, in advance and in the abstract, that the Court lacks the power to receive a request for, or to issue, an advisory opinion about a human rights treaty applicable to an American State merely because non-American States are also parties to the treaty or because the treaty has not been adopted within the framework or under the auspices of the inter-American system.” “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 48, and Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, para. 22. 183 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, paras. 148 to 153. 184 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 138 and 139, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 122 and 123, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 143. 185 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 106 and 117, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 86.39 to 86.41. 40