39 130. These safeguards, particularly those of effective participation and sharing of benefits regarding development or investment projects within traditional indigenous and tribal territories, are consistent with the observations of the Human Rights Committee, the text of several international instruments, and the practice in several States Parties to the Convention.128 In Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand, for example, the Human Rights Committee decided that the right to culture of an indigenous population under Article 27 of the ICCPR could be restricted where the community itself participated in the decision to restrict such right. The Committee found that “the acceptability of measures that affect or interfere with the culturally significant economic activities of a minority depends on whether the members of the minority in question have had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in relation to these measures and whether they will continue to benefit from their traditional economy”.129 131. Similarly, Article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was recently approved by the UN General Assembly with the support of the State of Suriname,130 states the following131: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact. 132. More importantly, the District Commissioner of Sipaliwini in Suriname, who testified before the Court on behalf of the State, recognized the importance of consulting with the traditional authorities of the Saramaka people prior to authorizing concessions that may 128 Cf., e.g. I.L.O. Convention No. 169, Article 15(2) (stating that “[i]n cases in which the State retains the ownership of mineral or sub-surface resources or rights to other resources pertaining to lands, 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 programmes for the exploration or exploitation of such resources pertaining to their lands.”) Similar requirements have been put in place by the World Bank, Revised Operational Policy and Bank Procedure on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10). Other documents more broadly speak of a minority’s right to participate in decisions that directly or indirectly affect them. Cf., e.g. UNHRC, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27), supra note 93, para. 7 (stating that the enjoyment of cultural rights under Article 27 of the ICCPR “may require positive legal measures of protection and measures to ensure the effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions which affect them”); UNCERD, General Recommendation No. 23, Rights of indigenous peoples, supra note 76, para. 4(d) (calling upon States parties to “[e]nsure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent”). 129 UNHRC, Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand (Seventieth session, 2000), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993, November 15, 2000, para. 9.5. 130 By a vote of 143 in favor to 4 against, with 11 abstentions, the UN General Assembly adopted on September 13, 2007 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Cf. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm). 131 The Court observes that, in explaining the position of the State in favor of this text, the representative of Suriname is reported to have specifically alluded to the aforementioned text of Article 32 of such instrument. The UN Press Release states the following: “[The representative of Suriname] said his Government accepted the fact that the States should seek prior consultation to prevent a disregard for human rights. The level of such consultations depended on the specific circumstances. Consultation should not be viewed as an end in itself, but should serve the purpose of respecting the interest of those who used the land”, supra note 130.