183. Having established that the State was obliged to carry out a prior consultation process in relation to the subsequent impacts and decisions arising from the oil exploration contract, at least since 1998 (supra para. 172), the State should have ensured the participation of the Sarayaku People and, consequently, that no actions to implement the concession were carried out on their territory without consulting them previously. 184. Thus, it has not been contested that the State did not carry out any type of consultation with the Sarayaku, at any stage of the implementation of oil exploration activities, through their institutions and representative bodies. In particular, the People were not consulted prior to the construction of the heliports, the preparation of the trails, the burial of the explosives, or the destruction of areas of great significance to their culture and worldview. b) Good faith and the aim of reaching an agreement 185. According to the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169, consultations must be “carried out […] in good faith and in a manner appropriate to the circumstances, with the aim of reaching an agreement or obtaining consent regarding the proposed measures.”242 186. In addition, the consultation must not only serve as a mere formality, but rather it must be conceived as “a true instrument for participation,”243 “which should respond to the ultimate purpose of establishing a dialogue between the parties based on principles of trust and mutual respect, and aimed at reaching a consensus between the parties.”244 Thus, it is an inherent part of every 241 Thus, the Peruvian Constitutional Court indicated that “[t]transferring this consultation to a moment after the publication of the measure eliminates the expectation of the intervention underlying the consultation [which] would also mean that the consultation takes place on acts that have been executed, which could be construed as lack of good faith” (judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, Case No. 0022-2009-PI/TC, para. 36). For its part, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court has declared that this “must take place before the actions in question have been defined” (Constitutional Court, Guatemala, December 21, 2009, Appeal of the amparo judgment, Case 3878-2007, V.a). Similarly, the Colombian Constitutional Court has stipulated that “the process shall be undertaken starting with the feasibility or planning stage, and not at the end.” In addition, it is mandatory to define the procedure to be followed in each specific process, “through a ‘preconsultation’ process […] to be carried out by mutual agreement with the community affected and other participating groups” (Constitutional Court of Colombia, judgment T-129/11, 7.1, p.75, and 8.1.vi) or “consultation on the consultation” (in which “the conditions under which the prior consultation will take place shall be defined, if it is decided to undertake public works, as a specific stage of prior consultation, once the viability of the work has been determined” (T-235/11, p. 56).” See also, Constitutional Court of Bolivia, judgment 2003/2010-R (October 25, 2010, Case 2008-17547-36-RAC. III.5), which has established that “the consultation must be carried out […] (a) before adopting or applying laws or measures that may directly affect indigenous peoples […]; (b) before approving any project that might affect their lands or territories and other resources […]; (c) before authorizing or undertaking any program for the exploration or exploitation of the natural resources found on the lands inhabited by indigenous peoples […], and (d) before using indigenous lands or territories for military activities.” The Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela established on December 5, 1996, that the participation in the prior consultation of the indigenous peoples “must take place before and during the legislative activity, and not only at the time of its promulgation by the governor of the state.” A 1996 ruling of the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice, cited in case No. 2005-5648. Se also, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, judgment No. 001-10-SIN-CC, Cases Nos. 0008-09-IN and 0011-09-IN, judgment of March 18, 2010, pp. 39 and 53. 242 ILO Convention No. 169, art. 6(2). Similarly, see Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs para. 134. For its part, the Universal Declaration states that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them […].” United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (articles 19 and 32.2) 243 Report of the Committee set up examine the representation alleging non-observance by Brazil of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), made under Article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Federal District Engineers Union (SENGE/DF), 2006, GB.295/17; GB.304/14/7, para. 42. 244 ILO, CEACR, Individual Observation concerning Convention No. 169, 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, 17 February 2005. In this report, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues established that informed consent: “should imply that information is provided that covers (at least) the following aspects: a. The nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity; b. The reason(s) for or purpose(s) of the project and/or activity; c. The duration of the above; d. The locality of areas that will be affected; e. A preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impact, including potential risks and fair and equitable benefit-sharing in a context that respects the precautionary principle; f. Personnel likely to be involved in the execution of the proposed project (including indigenous peoples, private sector staff, research institutions, government employees and others); g. Procedures that the project may entail.” Individual Observation concerning Convention No. 169, 52