216. Regarding prior consultation, this Court has indicated that the State must guarantee this, by allowing participation in all stages of the planning and implementation of a project that may affect the territory on which an indigenous or tribal community is settled, or other rights that are essential for their survival as a people. These discussion and consensus-building processes must be conducted as of the initial stages of the design or planning of the proposed measure, so that the indigenous peoples can truly participate in and influence the decision-making process, in keeping with the relevant international standards. 237 As to their characteristics, the Court has established that the consultation must be carried out in advance, in good faith, and with the aim of reaching an adequate, accessible and informed agreement. 238 In particular, in the case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Court determined the State’s responsibility because it had granted a private oil company a permit to carry out oil exploration activities in their territory without having consulted them previously. 239 217. In particular, regarding the moment at which consultation must be conducted, Article 15(2) of ILO Convention No. 169 indicates that “[w]hen the State retains ownership of mineral or sub-surface resources, governments shall establish or maintain procedures through which they shall consult these peoples, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what degree their interests would be prejudiced, before undertaking or permitting any programs for the exploration or exploitation of the resources pertaining to their land.” 218. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that consultation must be conducted prior to any exploration project that could affect the traditional territory of indigenous or tribal communities. 219. In the instant case, the Court noted that, on December 4, 2014, the mining corporation, Caxina S.A., obtained a 10-year non-metallic mining exploration concession over an area of 800 hectares that included part of the eastern edge of the two property titles granted to the Punta Piedra community (supra para. 125). This concession expressly authorized the company to use the subsoil and to carry out mining, geological, geophysical and other activities in the concession area. 240 In this regard, the Court considers that, owing to the purpose of the concession, the subsequent stages could directly affect the community’s territory, during the 10 years for which it was granted. Therefore, in this specific case, the situation required prior consultation of the community. 220. Regarding domestic law, the Court notes that, in general, article 95 of the 2004 Property Act provides that “[i]f the State intends to exploit the natural resources in the territories of [the indigenous and Afro-Honduran] peoples, it shall inform and consult [them] regarding the potential beneficial and negative impacts prior to authorizing any exploration or exploitation.” 241 Also, the regulations of this law refer to consultation without specifying the moment. 242 Meanwhile, section 50 of the General Mining Act Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 167. Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 178. 239 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, paras. 211 and 232. 240 Cf. “Consolidated Annual Financial Statement, DAC-2014” prepared by Caxina S.A., mining corporation, on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 757-759). 241 Article 95 of the Honduran Property Act (evidence file, folio 2312). 242 In this regard, article 264 establishes that: “If the State authorizes any type of exploitation as a result of which the native indigenous or Afro-Honduran peoples suffer harm, they shall receive fair compensation” (evidence file, folio 2551). In addition, article 267 stipulations: “[…] Any activity that may 237 238 63