A/HRC/27/52/Add.3 42. The Prior Consultation Act notes that “peasant or Andean communities and native communities or Amazonian peoples may also be identified as indigenous peoples, in accordance with the given criteria”,36 and the database published by the Office of the Deputy Minister of Intercultural Relations includes both Amazonian and Andean groups. However, certain Andean groups will be considered on a case-by-case basis for inclusion in the database, according to the criteria established by the Act. These criteria include both objective factors (descent of the indigenous peoples, links with the occupied territory, specific customs and institutions, and cultures that are different from other sectors of the national population) and subjective factors (collective indigenous identity).37 Some indigenous representatives consider that these criteria are too restrictive and that they leave the Government at liberty to determine who is indigenous and entitled to consultation. 43. Indigenous peoples in a situation of isolation or initial contact are also included in the database for prior consultation, a fact which has been criticized by some people. Nevertheless, as will be discussed (see section VIII below), the Government does not carry out prior consultation relating to legislative or administrative measures which would affect these peoples, owing to their particular condition, a policy which the Special Rapporteur considers should be reviewed in the case of indigenous peoples in initial contact. 44. Lastly, there are concerns over the position of the Government on the nonapplicability of prior consultation in relation to concessions granted before the entry into force of the Act on Prior Consultation in 2011. This position is based on the assertion that the provisions of the Act are not retroactive.38 The Special Rapporteur received information following his visit to the effect that the Office of the Deputy Minister of Intercultural Relations refused to apply prior consultation in relation to oil-related activities in Block 156, located near Lake Titicaca in Puno province, on the grounds that the oil concession had been granted in 2009. However, the Government has officially recognized that the obligation to conduct consultation has existed since the entry into force for Peru in 1995 of the International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), independently of the entry into force of the Prior Consultation Act. The Special Rapporteur nevertheless considers that, insofar as the effects on the human rights of indigenous peoples of a project initiated in the past continue to be felt in the present, these effects should be the subject of consultation, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the International Labour Organization’s Governing Body on the obligation to conduct consultations in accordance with Convention No. 169.39 B. Implementation of prior consultation: the case of Block 169 45. To date, only one consultation process has been completed under the new legislative regime governing a natural resources extraction project, for the hydrocarbon exploitation project in Block 169 in the Department of Ucayali, which has resulted in agreements between the indigenous peoples concerned and Perupetro, the State body responsible for promoting such projects. The block extends over 400,000 hectares in the provinces of 36 37 38 39 12 Act No. 29785, art. 7. Ibid. This assertion is based on the second of the Final Complementary Provisions of the Implementing Regulations. See the report by the Committee set up to examine the complaint alleging non-observance by Ecuador of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (GB 277/18/4; GB 282/14/2) (2001), paras. 37–40. GE.14-07246