A/HRC/39/62 41. Given that the pursuit of an activity or measure that affects indigenous peoples may result in a violation of their human rights, there should be a possibility for judicial or administrative review in the event that indigenous peoples wish to challenge that decision. 41 Such judicial or administrative review should be based on indigenous peoples’ rights in the Declaration, including their rights to self-determination and effective remedies,42 and their rights under human rights treaty law, regional and domestic law, and indigenous peoples’ own laws, customs and protocols. 3. Documenting, monitoring, reviewing and recourse mechanism for free, prior and informed consent 42. Free, prior and informed consent should be documented, capturing the steps for accomplishing such consent and the essence of the agreement reached by the concerned parties, in accordance with indigenous peoples’ customary norms and traditional methods of decision-making, including diverging opinions and conditional views. Guidelines or models for seeking free, prior and informed consent that are developed by either States or private actors should not prevail over indigenous peoples’ own community protocols or traditional practices of capturing or recording agreements. 43. Forms of expressing consent may include, for example, treaties, agreements and contracts. Often terms are commemorated in a memorandum of agreement or understanding, or other document that is satisfactory to the indigenous peoples. Translation services must be provided where needed. Indigenous peoples must have the opportunity, moreover, to consent to each relevant aspect of a proposal or project. A generalized or limited statement of consent that, for example, does not expressly acknowledge different phases of development or the entire scope or impact of the project will not be considered to meet the standard for consent. Consent must be “ongoing” with express opportunities and requirements for review and renewal set by the parties. 44. Agreements on consent should include detailed statements of the project, its duration and the potential impacts on the indigenous peoples, including their lands, livelihoods, resources, cultures and environments (see A/HRC/24/41, para. 73); provisions for mitigation, assessment, and reimbursement for any damages to those resources; statements of indemnification of indigenous peoples for injuries caused to others on their lands; methods and venues for dispute resolution; detailed benefit-sharing arrangements (including investment, revenue sharing, employment and infrastructure); and a timetable of deliverables, including opportunities to negotiate continuing terms and licences. As a matter of best practice, any form of consent should include a detailed description of the process of notice, consultation and participation that preceded the consent. 45. As a dynamic process, the implementation of free, prior and informed consent should also be monitored and evaluated regularly. Such agreements should “include mechanisms for participatory monitoring” (ibid.). The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations underlines the need for “periodic evaluation of the operation of the consultation mechanisms, with the participation of the peoples concerned” to continue to improve their effectiveness. 43 The implementation of free, prior and informed consent should also include accessible recourse mechanisms for disputes and grievances, devised with the effective participation of indigenous peoples, including judicial review. 41 42 43 12 See statement of James Anaya at conference on “The role of the Ombudsman in Latin America: the right to prior consultation with indigenous peoples”, Lima, 25 April 2013. Available from http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/statements/el-deber-estatal-de-consulta-a-los-pueblos-indigenas-dentrodel-derecho-internacional (in Spanish). See Poma Poma v. Peru. ILO observation 2010/81, p. 7.