A/HRC//18/42 9. Moreover, consultations should be undertaken in good faith and in a form appropriate to the relevant context. This requires that consultations be carried out in a climate of mutual trust and transparency. Indigenous peoples must be given sufficient time to engage in their own decision-making process, and participate in decisions taken in a manner consistent with their cultural and social practices. Finally, the objective of consultations should be to achieve agreement or consensus. 10. As indicated above, the duty to consult indigenous peoples is further reflected in a number of provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.67 Like ILO Convention No. 169, Declaration articles 19 and 32(2) require States to consult indigenous peoples in good faith, through appropriate procedures, with the objective of obtaining their agreement or consent when measures that may affect indigenous peoples are considered. 11. Moreover, a number of United Nations human rights treaty bodies have established that States have a duty, within the framework of their treaty obligations, to effectively consult indigenous peoples on matters affecting their interests and rights and, in some cases, to seek to obtain the consent of indigenous peoples.68 12. The duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples and to obtain their consent are also expressed in the jurisprudence of, inter alia, the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council,69 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights,70 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights,71 the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples,72 and in international policy,73 some of which is described in the Expert Mechanism’s progress report on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making.74 In the 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 24 A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2. Arts. 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37 and 38. See A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2. See also CCPR/C/79/Add.109 and Add.112, CCPR/CO/69/AUS and CCPR/CO/74/SWE; Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40), vol. II, annex X, section I, para. 9.6; CERD/C/CAN/CO/18, paras. 15 and 25; CERD/C/NZL/CO/17, para. 20; CERD/C/IDN/CO/3, para. 17; CERD/C/COD/CO/15, para. 18; CERD/C/ECU/CO/19, para. 16; CERD/C/USA/CO/6, para. 29; CERD/C/NAM/CO/12, para. 18; CERD/C/SWE/CO/18, para. 19; CCPR/C/NIC/CO/3, para. 21; CCPR/C/BWA/CO/1, para. 24; CCPR/C/CRI/CO/5, para. 5; CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 19; Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-second Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/52/18), annex V; and E/C.12/GC/21. See, for example, Human Rights Council decision 12/106. For example, Yatama v. Nicaragua (see footnote 65) and Saramaka People v. Suriname, judgement of 28 November 2007. Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya (see footnote 66). A/HRC/12/34. For example, see the Akwe: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the implementation of article 8(j) of the Convention of Biodiversity, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Environmental and Social Policy (May 2008). A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2.