A/HRC/30/54 27. In Chile, a free, prior and informed consultation process had been taking place since 2014, through which the Ministry of Social Development was seeking to establish new institutions that would validate the right of indigenous peoples to develop their rights to autonomy and self-determination. The indigenous peoples of the country decided to create a national council system to represent each of the various peoples (Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui, Atacama, Quechua, Diaguita, Kawashkar and Yagán). There was also a “Proposal for a State Policy Agenda for Decentralization and Territorial Development of Chile”, which recognized the Araucanía Region as multinational and multicultural in recognition of the Mapuche people. 28. In relation to self-determination, Peru’s measures had two areas of focus. The first was taking steps to improve the identification and registration of indigenous peoples. The second was to recognize the right of self-determination for indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and those in initial contact, including the recognition and protection of territorial reserves. 29. In the case of Costa Rica, at the time of reporting, the Government was supporting a draft law on indigenous peoples’ autonomy which was being discussed by the Legislative Assembly. 30. Colombia, in addition to highlighting its ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 in 1991, also referred to Decree 1953 of 2014, which created a special regime for indigenous peoples’ territories regarding the administration of their own health, education, and water and sanitation systems. 31. Responses from indigenous peoples varied significantly. In this regard, the Asociación Kunas Unidos por Napguana reported that the Kuna people had enjoyed autonomy over their territory (Comarca de Guna Yala) in Panama since 1935, under the leadership of the Kuna General Congress, through which 49 communities were represented. In other cases, while the legal framework provided for significant levels of autonomy, those rights were not in fact respected. Finally, some responses indicated situations in which domestic laws and institutions still did not recognize indigenous peoples (ONG Adjmor reporting on the situation in Mali, Rehoboth Basters Community reporting on the situation in Namibia, and Teemashane Community Development Trust reporting on the situation in Botswana). C. Participation in decision-making and free, prior and informed consent 32. The questionnaire posed the following question to States and indigenous peoples: “Have specific legislative, policy, or administrative measures been adopted to implement rights relating to participation in decision-making, including the obligation to seek free, prior and informed consent? If yes, please provide details. If not, please outline any plans to develop legislative, policy or administrative measures in this area.” 33. The role that the right to participation plays in the implementation of the Declaration has been examined by the Expert Mechanism, including in its study on participation in decision-making (A/HRC/18/42), in which it stated that the right to participate is indivisible from and interrelated with other rights, such as the right to self-determination and rights to lands, territories and resources. 34. Several States noted that the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decisionmaking was part of domestic law. For example, Chilean law provided a procedure for indigenous peoples to have a technical advisory role when the Government was taking legislative or administrative measures that directly or indirectly impacted them. In Guatemala, the right to participate in decision-making was established in law, with the goal 6