45 159. It is important to recall that the obligation to consult indigenous and tribal peoples is directly related to the general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention. This entails the State’s duty to appropriately organize the entire governmental apparatus and to structure its laws and institutions 172 so that indigenous and tribal communities can be consulted effectively, in accordance with the relevant international standards. This is necessary to create channels for sustained, effective, and reliable dialogue with the indigenous and tribal peoples in the consultation and participation processes through their representative institutions. 173 160. Additionally, and specifically regarding the right to collective property, the State must guarantee these rights to consultation and participation at all stages of the planning and implementation of a project or measure that may affect the territory on which and indigenous or tribal community is settled, or other rights essential to their survival as people. This must be conducted from the first stages of the planning or preparation of the proposed measure or project, so that the indigenous peoples can truly participate in and influence the decisionmaking process, in accordance with the relevant international standards. In this regard, the State must ensure that the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples are not ignored in any other activity or agreement reached with private individuals, or in the context of decisions of the public authorities that would affect their rights and interests. Therefore, as applicable, the State must also carry out the tasks of inspection and supervision of their application and, when pertinent, deploy effective means to safeguard those rights through the corresponding judicial organs.174 In what refers to its characteristics, the Court has stated that the consultation must be of a prior nature, be carried out in good faith, with the aim of reaching an agreement, appropriate, accessible, and informed.175 161. The Court verified that even though the domestic obligation to guarantee the right to the effective use and enjoyment of property to indigenous and tribal peoples exists since 1982, it was at least on March 28, 1996 that Honduras acquired the international commitment to guarantee the right to consultation upon the coming into force of Convention 169 of the ILO, ratified by that State on March 28, 1995. B.5.2. Application of the right to consultation of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz 162. In this case we must determine if the State complied or not with the obligation of guaranteeing the right to consultation of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, taking into consideration some of the essential elements of that right, and remembering that some of the elements of Inter-American case law and norms, State practice, and the evolution of international law are: a) the prior nature of the consultation; b) good faith and the aim of convention states 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 programs for the exploration or exploitation of such resources pertaining to their lands. The peoples concerned shall wherever possible participate in the benefits of such activities and shall receive fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of such activities.” Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 166. 172 173 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 166. 174 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 167. 175 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 178.