A/HRC/21/47 critical importance. Arriving at such understanding cannot be adequately achieved by framing the discussion within these principles alone, however. 49. A better approach appreciates, first, that neither consultation nor consent is an end in itself, nor are consultation and consent stand-alone rights. As instructed by the Inter1 American Court of Human Rights in Saramaka v. Suriname, principles of consultation and consent together constitute a special standard that safeguards and functions as a means for the exercise of indigenous peoples’ substantive rights. It is a standard that supplements and helps effectuate substantive rights, including the right to property, which was the focus of the Court’s judgement in that case, and other rights that may be implicated in natural resource development and extraction. 50. The primary substantive rights of indigenous peoples that may be implicated in natural resource development and extraction, as has been extensively documented include, in particular, rights to property, culture, religion, and non-discrimination in relation to lands, territories and natural resources, including sacred places and objects; rights to health and physical well-being in relation to a clean and healthy environment; and rights to set and pursue their own priorities for development, including development of natural resources, as part of their fundamental right to self-determination. These rights are grounded in multiple international instruments, including binding multilateral human rights treaties that have been widely ratified, and are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.2 51. By their very nature, the rights that are potentially affected by natural resource extraction entail autonomy of decision-making in their exercise. This is especially obvious with regard to the rights to set development priorities and to property, but it is also true of the other rights. Accordingly, the consultation and consent standard that applies specifically to indigenous peoples is a means of effectuating these rights, and is further justified by the generally marginalized character of indigenous peoples in the political sphere, but it is a standard that certainly does not represent the full scope of these rights (A/HRC/18/35, para. 82). 52. Furthermore, it is important to comprehend that the consultation and consent standard is not the only safeguard against measures that may affect indigenous peoples’ rights over their lands, territories and natural resources, among others. Such additional safeguards include but are not limited to the undertaking of prior impact assessments that provide adequate attention to the full range of indigenous peoples’ rights, the establishment of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts on the exercise of those rights, benefit-sharing and compensation for impacts in accordance with relevant international 1 2 Judgement of 28 November 2007, paras. 129-137. See E/CN.4/2003/90, paras. 6-30 (discussing the impact of large-scale development projects on indigenous peoples’ rights, including rights over lands and resources); E/CN.4/2002/97, paras. 39-57 (a review of international and domestic law and practice upholding indigenous rights over lands, territories, and natural resources); A/HRC/9/9, paras. 20-30 (a review of the practice of human rights bodies under international instruments of general applicability); Report on the situation of human rights in Ecuador (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1 (1997)), chap. VIII (discussing conditions of environmental pollution resulting from oil development as inconsistent with the rights to life and physical well-being); Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and resources, norms and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 56/09 (2009)), paras. 5-22 (reviewing the foundations of indigenous rights over lands, territories and resources in international instruments, customary international law and the practice of treaty bodies). 13