Venezuela212 have indicated the need to respect the norms of prior consultation and of this Convention. Other courts of countries that have not ratified ILO Convention No. 169 have also referred to the need to carry out prior consultations with indigenous, autochthonous or tribal communities regarding any administrative or legislative measure that directly affects them, as well as with regard to the exploitation of natural resources on their territory. Thus, similar developments in case law are evident by the high courts of countries of the region, such as Canada213 or the United right to prior consultation of the ethnic communities, above all, because the tools that support the consultation allow the parties to reconcile their positions and reach a middle ground for intercultural dialogue in which the peoples exercise their right to autonomy with their own life plans in relation to economic models based on market economy or similar” Constitutional Court of Colombia, judgment C-169/01, para. 5.1). Furthermore, the Court indicated that the State’s obligation to consult is a direct result of the right of native communities to decide on the priorities in their process of developing and preserving their culture (judgment C 169/01, para. 2.3). 207 The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica indicated that the “Constitution must be interpreted and applied so as to allow and facilitate the independent life and development of ethnic minorities in Costa Rica, without other limitations than those imposed by human rights on the conduct of all” (considering para. III). Regarding consultation with indigenous peoples, it established that “any legislative or administrative measure that is likely to directly affect the peoples concerned must be consulted with them” (considering para. IV). Thus, it recalled that, because of the normative rank granted by article 7 of the Constitution, the ILO Convention No. 169 has primacy over the laws and, therefore, its protection falls within the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction (Considering para. III). Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, 2011-1768 of February 11, 2011, Application for Amparo. See also, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, judgment 2000-08019, September 8, 2000. 208 The Constitutional Court of Ecuador has referred to prior consultation in its case law, indicating that “[p]ublic consultation is another major aspect of environmental management, and the participation of the people must find expression at the different stages of this process, that is, during planning, policy development, environmental impact studies, monitoring and procedural legitimacy; the ability to file different actions before the administrative or judicial bodies must exist” (Case of the Dry Swamps of Pastaza, No. 222-2004-RA, judgment of June 9, 2004, considering Para. 12). It also indicated that “any State decision that may affect the environment, of which the community should be duly informed under the law to guarantee the participation of the community” and that “the participation of the public in environmental issues […] is considered essential as it is precisely the community who will bear the consequences of the different activities undertaken in their environment” (Case of the IMAX cinema in the Parish of Cumbayá, No. 679-2003-RA, considering para. 6). 209 The Constitutional Court of Guatemala referred to the right to prior consultation of the indigenous peoples emphasizing that it consists essentially in “a fundamental right of a collective nature, according to which the State has the duty to establish procedures in good faith designed to obtain the free and informed opinion of these communities when government legislative or administrative measures are proposed that may affect them directly, in order to establish the required agreements or measures.” The Court added that “[t]his recognition is a result of the awareness of the need to promote in a special manner the safeguard of the interests of the human populations that, owing to factors related to their cultural identity, have been excluded from decision-making processes of the public authorities and from the operations of the State structures in general. In this regard, it becomes a guarantee of equality or an equalizing mechanism, for these populations to have a real ability to decide and influence the provisions that have an impact on their living conditions, in order to place them on the same footing as any other group of citizens” (Constitutional Court, Guatemala, December 21, 2009, Appeal against amparo judgment, Case 3878-2007, Section V. 210 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Amparo under review 781/2011. María Monarca Lázaro et al. March 14, 2012. Also, the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Mexican Federation invoked Convention No. 169 to determine that failure to consult an indigenous community regarding elections is considered an indication of lack of diligence by the authorities and, in the specific case, it resulted in the Court's decision to consider that the postponement of the elections had been improperly justified in accordance with indigenous customary law (Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation, Joel Cruz Chavez et al. v. the Fifty-Ninth Legislature of the State of Oaxaca et al., SUP-JDC-11/2007, judgment of June 6, 2007). 211 The case law of the Peruvian Constitutional Court has referred to the right to prior consultation in several decisions. In particular, the Court has indicated that, in cases of exploitation of natural resources, “it is necessary to consult indigenous communities that might be harmed by such activities,” and that “not only shall those indigenous peoples on whose territory activities are carried out be consulted, but also, for example, indigenous peoples immediately adjacent to that area who are likely to be affected.” In addition, the judgment stated that “any process shall begin with the determination of the legislative or administrative measures that may directly affect indigenous peoples” (judgment of the Constitutional Court, Case No. 0022-2009-PI/TC, paras. 23 and 41). The Court also established that the right to ethnic identity includes: “[t]he right to be heard and consulted prior to any action or measure taken and that may affect them” (judgment of the Constitutional Court, Case No. 03343-2007-PA/TC, para. 30). 212 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 2005-5648, of December 6, 2005. 213 Regarding the territorial rights of indigenous peoples, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[t]he honor of the Crown requires that these rights be determined, recognized and respected. The latter requires that the Crown act honorably and participate in negotiation processes. During this process, the honor of the Crown may require a consultation and, where indicated, consider the interests of the indigenous population” (Haida v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2004] 3 S.C.R. 44