A/HRC/24/41 extractive projects to have positive relations with those most immediately affected by the projects, lending needed stability to the projects. 30. Whereas the withholding of consent may block extractive projects promoted by companies or States, the granting of consent can open the door to such projects. But it must be emphasized that the consent is not a free-standing device of legitimation. The principle of free, prior and informed consent, arising as it does within a human rights framework, does not contemplate consent as simply a yes to a predetermined decision, or as a means to validate a deal that disadvantages affected indigenous peoples. When consent is given, not just freely and on an informed basis, but also on just terms that are protective of indigenous peoples rights, it will fulfil its human rights safeguard role. 2. The narrow scope of permissible exceptions to the general rule 31. The general requirement of indigenous consent for extractive activities within indigenous territories may be subject to certain exceptions, but only within narrowly defined parameters. First, consent may not be required for extractive activities within indigenous territories in cases in which it can be conclusively established that the activities will not substantially affect indigenous peoples in the exercise of any of their substantive rights in relation to the lands and resources within their territories15 – perhaps mostly a theoretical possibility given the invasive nature of extractive activities, especially when indigenous peoples are living in close proximity to the area where the activities are being carried out. More plausibly, consent may not be required when it can be established that the extractive activity would only impose such limitations on indigenous peoples’ substantive rights as are permissible within certain narrow bounds established by international human rights law. 32. Within established doctrine of international human rights law, and in accordance with explicit provisions of international human rights treaties, States may impose limitations on the exercise of certain human rights, such as the rights to property and to freedom of religion and expression. In order to be valid, however, the limitations must comply with certain standards of necessity and proportionality with regard to a valid public purpose, defined within an overall framework of respect for human rights. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in its article 46, paragraph 2, identifies the parameters of permissible limitations of the rights therein recognized with the following minimum standard: The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society. 33. It will be recalled that consent performs a safeguard role for indigenous peoples’ fundamental rights. When indigenous peoples freely give consent to extractive projects under terms that are aimed to be protective of their rights, there can be a presumption that any limitation on the exercise of rights is permissible and that rights are not being infringed.16 On the other hand, when indigenous peoples withhold their consent to extractive projects within their territories, no such presumption applies, and in order for a 15 16 10 See Poma, para. 7.6. (consultation and consent required for “measures which substantially compromise or interfere with the culturally significant economic activities of a minority or indigenous community”). See Saramaka People (footnote 13 above), paras. 127-134.