that have ratified ILO Convention No. 169200 have referred to the right to prior consultation in accordance with the latter’s provisions. Thus, high courts of Argentina,201 Belize,202 Bolivia,203 Brazil,204 Chile,205 Colombia,206 Costa Rica,207 Ecuador,208 Guatemala,209 Mexico,210 Peru211 and organization, legitimate authorities and systems of communication and information of the members of the indigenous peoples and communities involved, in accordance with the procedure established in this Law. All activities that exploit natural resources and any development projects carried out on indigenous habitat and lands shall be subject to the procedures of information and prior consultation, pursuant to this Law.” 200 The following countries of the region have ratified ILO Convention No. 169: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. 201 The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has ruled that the guarantee of the right to communal property of the indigenous peoples, “must take into account that the land is closely related to their traditions and oral expressions, their customs and languages, their arts and rituals, their knowledge and its uses in relation to nature, their culinary arts, their customary law, their dress, philosophy and values,” and “[t]he significance and fragility of the said assets should guide judges not only in the elucidation of and decisions on substantive points of law, but also […] in those related to the “judicial protection” established in the American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 25), which has constitutional rank” (CSJN, “Eben Ezer Indigenous Community v/Province of Salta – Ministry of Labor and Production ref/amparo” of September 30, 2008, C. 2124. XLI, p.4). Similarly, the Neuquén Superior Court of Justice has ruled on the right to prior consultation of indigenous peoples, indicating that this is “essentially, a fundamental right of a collective nature, and therefore the State must establish procedures in good faith aimed at obtaining the free and informed opinion of these communities, when legislative or administrative actions of the Government are envisaged that may affect them directly, in order to establish the required agreements or arrangements.” This court added that “recognition of [the right to prior consultation] arises from an awareness of the need to specifically advocate safeguarding the interests of human populations that, owing to factors related to their cultural identity, have been neglected in the decision-making processes of the public authorities and the functioning of state structures in general. Thus, it becomes a guarantee of equality or an equalizing mechanism, as regards the real ability of these peoples to express their opinions and influence provisions designed to haves an impact on their lives, in order to place them on the same footing as any other group of citizens” (TSJN, Agreement No. 6 in the case “ Mapuche Catalán Community and Neuquina Indigenous Confederation v/Province of Neuquen ref/action on unconstitutionality” of October 25, 2010, File. No. 1090-1004). See also, First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza, Argentina, File No. 102.631, judgment of May 18, 2012. 202 The Belize Supreme Court indicated that “although Belize has not yet ratified [ILO] Convention No. 169 […], there is no doubt that article 14 of that instrument contains provisions on the right to the land of indigenous peoples that reflect the principles of international law concerning indigenous peoples.” Supreme Court of Belize, Case of Aurelio Cal in his own behalf and on behalf of the Maya Village of Santa Cruz Maya et al. v. Attorney General of Belize et al.”, cases 171 and 172, 2007, Judgment of October 18, 2007. 203 The Bolivian Constitutional Court has ruled on several occasions regarding the right to prior consultation. In particular, it noted that “the State’s respect for the social, economic and cultural rights of indigenous peoples, especially those relating to their original lands, guaranteeing the sustainable use and exploitation of the natural resources on those lands; making effective a guarantee to protect indigenous peoples based on their special characteristics, including the social and economic conditions that distinguish them from the rest of the national community, who are governed by their own customs or traditions, and are aware of belonging to this community and deserve to be formally recognized as such by the State organs.” Constitutional Court of Bolivia, judgment 0045/2006, June 2, 2006. II.5.3. See also File No. 2008-17547-36RAC, judgment of October 25, 2010, III.5: “[a]ccording to article 15.2 of ILO Convention No. 169, consultation must also be carried out with regard to resources existing on the lands of the indigenous peoples, since it indicates that when “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 lands.” 204 The Fifth Federal Court of First Instance, Judicial District of Maranhão established that “[t]he State cannot ignore the constitutional protection that forms part of one of the fundamental objectives of the Federative Republic of Brazil,” that is, “to promote the good of all, without preconceptions of origin, race, sex, age or any other form of discrimination” (Federal Constitution 1988, art. 3,IV), thus including the traditional Afro-descendant communities (descendants of the Quilombo communities), especially when, as emphasized by the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Brazilian State has confirmed its intention to establish public policies to combat discrimination against the traditional lifestyles of indigenous and tribal peoples by publishing Legislative Decree No. 43/2000, ratifying ILO Convention No. 169. Fifth Federal Court of First Instance, Judicial District of Maranhão, Joisael Alves et al. v. Diretor Geral do Centro de Lançamento de Alcântara, Judgment No. 027/2007/JCM/JF/MA, Proceedings No. 2006.37.00.005222-7, judgment of February 13, 2007. 205 Chile’s case law has referred to the right to prior consultation indicating that, in a case where a municipality proceeded to exploit trees on a hillside, without consulting the indigenous communities concerned, it “had violated the right to mental integrity of the appellants, because there is no doubt that the intervention and destruction of their cultural heritage leads to a feeling of lack of respect for their social identity, their customs and their traditions, as well as the conservation of the inherent characteristics of their ethnic group, naturally causing distress and great concern.” Court of Appeal of Conception, Chile, August 10, 2010. 206 Regarding the right to free and informed consultation, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has stated that “the State must guarantee and encourage, in a coordinated manner, the real and effective implementation of the fundamental 43