42 such consultations should be to obtain their free and informed consent.”231 Through the consultation process the participation of the indigenous and tribal peoples must be guaranteed “in all decisions on natural resource projects on their lands and territories, from design, through tendering and award, to execution and evaluation.”232 128. For the Court, effective participation consists precisely in the right of the indigenous peoples to prior consultation “in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan” within their ancestral territory.233 The Court has also considered that, in the case of large scale investment or development plans that could have a major impact within the indigenous territory, “the State has a duty, not only to consult with the [indigenous people], but also to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, in accordance with its customs and traditions.”234 The Court has emphasized that “the obligation to consult, in addition to being a conventional standard, is also a general principle of International Law” and that “nowadays the obligation of States to carry out special and differentiated consultation processes when certain interests of indigenous peoples and communities are to be affected is an obligation that has been clearly recognized.”235 The Court has also specified that “it is the State’s obligation—and not that of the indigenous peoples—to effectively demonstrate, in this specific case, that all aspects of the right to prior consultation were effectively guaranteed.”236 129. In order to be consistent with inter-American human rights law, the consultation with the indigenous peoples must fulfill certain requirements: it must be prior, that is to say, it must be conducted “from the first stages of planning or preparation of the proposed measures, so that the indigenous peoples can truly participate in and influence the decision-making process.”237 It also must be culturally appropriate and take the traditional methods used by the people concerned to take decisions, as well as their own forms of representation.238 It must be informed, which requires that full and accurate information be provided to the communities consulted regarding the nature and consequences of the process.239 The consultation must also be conducted in good faith 231 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 157. See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, para. 143. 232 IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, para. 248. 233 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paras. 127, 128. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 159-167. 234 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 134. 235 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 164 and 165. 236 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 179. 237 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245. para. 167 and paras. 180-182. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 133. 238 I/A Court H.R, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paras. 27, 131, 133, 154. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 201-202.