consultation with indigenous communities that “a climate of mutual trust be established,”245 and good faith requires the absence of any form of coercion by the State or by agents or third parties acting with its authority or acquiescence. Furthermore, consultation in good faith is incompatible with practices such as attempts to undermine the social cohesion of the affected communities, either by bribing community leaders or by establishing parallel leaders, or by negotiating with individual members of the community, all of which are contrary to international standards. Similarly, the domestic legislation246 and case law of the States of the region247 have referred to the requirement of good faith. 187. It should be emphasized that the obligation to consult is the responsibility of the State;248 therefore the planning and executing of the consultation process is not an obligation that can be avoided by delegating it to a private company or to third parties, much less delegating it to the very company that is interested in exploiting the resources in the territory of the community that must be consulted.249 188. During the proceedings, the State argued that, after the contract had been signed, the CGC oil company sought an “agreement” or form of “socialization” with the communities in order to carry out its contractual activities and that, in addition, the consulting company, Walsh Environmental, subcontracted by CGC, conducted an environmental impact assessment in 1997. The assessment Bolivia, 2005. See United Nations, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples, E/C.19/2005/3, February 17, 2005. See also, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, October 5, 2009, A/HRC/12/34/Add.6, Appendix A, paras. 21 and 23. 245 Report of the Committee set up examine the representation alleging non-observance by Guatemala of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under Article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Federation of Rural and Urban Workers (FTCC), GB.294/17/1; GB.299/6/1 (2005), para. 53. See also, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, October 5, 2009, A/HRC/12/34/Add.6, Appendix A, para. 25. 246 Cf. Bolivian Constitution, article 30.II: “Within the framework of the unity of the State and in accordance with this Constitution, the original rural indigenous nations and peoples enjoy the following rights: […] 15. To be consulted through appropriate procedures and, in particular, through their own institutions, whenever legislative or administrative measures are considered that may affect them. Within this framework, the right to mandatory prior consultation shall be guaranteed and respected, by the State, in good faith and by mutual agreement, with regard to the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources on their territory.” Peru: Law on Prior Consultation of indigenous or original peoples, recognized in ILO Convention No. 169, September 6, 2011, article 4: “State entities shall analyze and assess the position of the indigenous or original peoples during the consultation process, in a climate of trust, cooperation and mutual respect.” Similarly, in Venezuela, article 11 of the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities of December 8, 2005, stipulates that “[c]onsultation shall be in good faith, taking into account the languages and spirituality, and respecting the specific organization, legitimate authorities and systems of communication and information of the members of the indigenous peoples and communities concerned, in accordance with the procedure as established in this Law […].” 247 The Colombian Constitutional Court has stipulated that it is “necessary to establish effective communications based on the principle of good faith, in which the specific circumstances of each group and the importance of its territory and its resources are taken into consideration” (Constitutional Court of Colombia, judgment T-129/11, 8.1.iv. Also, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court, December 21, 2009, Appeal against amparo judgment, Case file 3878-2007, IV and V). In addition, the same Court has indicated that consultation in good faith “means that this must not be regarded as a mere formality to be complied with, or as a procedure, but as a process rooted in the Constitution, with its own substantive content aimed at preserving the fundamental rights of the peoples affected” (judgment C-461/08, 6.3.4.). Similarly, the Peruvian Constitutional Court has indicated that “the principle of good faith is the essential element of the right to consultation [… and that,] through it, it is possible to exclude a series of subtle, implicit or express practices that may seek to deprive the right to consultation of its content” (Case file No. 002-2009-PI/TC, para. 27). The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court has indicated that the “specific parameters developed by the ILO that must be taken into account are: […] e. The obligation for all those involved to act in GOOD FAITH. The consultation must constitute a real “participation mechanism” whose purpose is to seek consensus between the participants, [and] f. The obligation to publicize the process and use a reasonable time for each phase of the process, a condition that aids transparency and establishing trust between the parties” (judgment No 001-10-SIN-CC, Cases Nos. 0008-09-IN and 0011-09-IN, Judgment of March 18, 2010, p. 53). 248 ILO Convention No. 169, Article 6; United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, Article 19; Case of the Indigenous People of Saramaka v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 102, 129 and 131. See also, affidavit provided by Rodolfo Stavenhagen on June 24, 2011 (file of affidavits of the representatives of the presumed victims, tome 19, folio 10131). 249 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, A/HRC/12/34 of 14 July 2009, paras. 53 to 55. 53