162. In this regard, the reiterated case law of this Court since the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous People v. Paraguay, is applicable to this case: Given that the instant case concerns the rights of members of an indigenous community, the Court finds it appropriate to recall that, under Articles 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, the States must ensure, on an equal basis, full exercise and enjoyment of the rights of those individuals who are not subject to their jurisdiction. However, it is necessary to emphasize that in order to ensure those rights effectively, when interpreting and applying their domestic law, the States must take into account the particular characteristics that distinguish the members of the indigenous peoples from the general population and that constitute their cultural identity. The Court must apply that same reasoning, as indeed it will in the instant case, to assess the scope and content of the articles of the American Convention that the Commission and the representatives claim were violated by the State.187 163. ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of 1989 applies, inter alia, to “the tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations,”188 and for whom States “shall have the responsibility of developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic actions to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.”189 Articles 13 to 19 of this Convention refer to the rights of those populations to their land and territories,” and Articles 6, 15, 17, 22, 27 and 28 regulate the different situations in which prior, free and informed consultations should be applied in cases where measures are contemplated that affect them. 164. Several Member States of the Organization of American States have incorporated these standards in their domestic laws and through their highest courts. Thus, the domestic laws of several States in the region, such as Argentina,190 Bolivia,191 Chile,192 Colombia,193 United States,194 186 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 125 to 130; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 93 and 94, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 117. 187 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 51, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 59-60. 188 ILO. Convention No. 169, article 1.1.a. 189 ILO. Convention No. 169, article 2. 190 Article 75.17 of the 1994 National Constitution of Argentina recognizes the ethnic and cultural preexistence of the Argentine indigenous peoples, the legal status of their communities and their communal possession and ownership of the lands they traditionally occupy, declaring that none of these shall be sold, transferred or subject to liens or embargoes. Moreover, the same provision guarantees the participation of indigenous peoples “in the management of their natural resources and other interests affecting them.” 191 In Bolivia, the Constitution recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted “through appropriate procedures, and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever legislative or administrative measures are considered that may affect them. In this context, the right to compulsory prior consultation conducted by the State, in good faith and with consensus, with regard to the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources in the territory they inhabit shall be respected and guaranteed” (art. 30.II.15). In addition to constitutional provisions, Bolivia’s domestic legislation makes numerous references to the right to prior consultation such as Law 3058 of May 19, 2005, article 78 of Environmental Law 1333 of April 27, 1992, and Executive Decree No. 29033 of February 16, 2007, which regulates the process of prior consultation, particularly article 4, which includes the principles of comprehensiveness and participation. 192 In Chile, article 34 of Indigenous Law No. 19,253 of 1993 stipulates that “when addressing matters that affect or are related to indigenous issues, the services of the State administration and local organizations shall hear and consider the views of the indigenous organizations recognized by this Law.” 193 In Colombia, article 330 of the Constitution states that “[t]he exploitation of natural resources in indigenous territories shall be undertaken without harming the cultural, social and economic integrity of the indigenous communities. In decisions taken with regard to such exploitation, the Government shall encourage the participation of representatives of the respective communities.” Furthermore, several provisions of Colombian law refer to prior consultation: article 76 of Colombia’s General Law on the Environment, Law 99 of 1993, regulates the methods and procedures for the participation of indigenous and black communities in environmental matters; Decree No. 1397 of 1996; Law No. 70 of 1993, article 44; Presidential Directive Number 01, 2010; Decree 1320, of 1998; Decree Law No. 200 of February 3, 2003; Decree No. 1220 of April 21, 2005; Decree No. 4633 of 2011; and Decree No. 4633 of December 9, 2011. 194 In the United States, the right to prior consultation was codified in the Northwest Decree passed by Congress in 1787. Article III of the decree established that the territories of indigenous peoples “cannot be invaded or disturbed, unless it is under a declaration of war ordered by Congress.” Moreover, the obligation of prior consultation is established in the 1966 41