A/HRC/21/55 resources, the requirement to obtain indigenous peoples‟ consent will depend on context. Article 32 states that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources”. 22. In the final report on its study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, the Expert Mechanism provides further clarification: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires that the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples be obtained in matters of fundamental importance to their rights, survival, dignity and well-being. In assessing whether a matter is of importance to the indigenous peoples concerned, relevant factors include the perspective and priorities of the indigenous peoples concerned, the nature of the matter or proposed activity and its potential impact on the indigenous peoples concerned, taking into account, inter alia, the cumulative effects of previous encroachments or activities and historical inequities faced by the indigenous peoples concerned.12 23. The potential impact of the proposed activities is also relevant in an assessment as to when indigenous peoples‟ consent is necessary. The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples has stressed that “a significant, direct impact on indigenous peoples‟ lives or territories establishes a strong presumption that the proposed measure should not go forward without indigenous peoples‟ consent” (A/HRC/12/34, para. 47). 24. Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also determined that the impact on the indigenous peoples‟ territory is relevant when assessing when indigenous peoples‟ consent is necessary. It stated in one case that “regarding large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact within Saramaka territory, the State has a duty, not only to consult with the Saramakas, but also to obtain their free, prior and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions”.13 25. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has repeatedly noted the obligation on States to ensure adequate consultation and the acquisition of indigenous peoples‟ free, prior and informed consent in relation to development activities and especially resource extraction. 14 Its jurisprudence is highly instructive, as it has set out the factual circumstances in which it has found that indigenous peoples‟ consent is required. 12 13 14 A/HRC/18/42, para. 22. Saramaka People v. Suriname (note 9 above), para. 134. This approach was endorsed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights in Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya (Case 276/2003), para. 227. See, for example, the Committee‟s concluding observations CERD/C/IND/CO/19, para. 19; CERD/C/ARG/CO/19-20, para. 26; CERD/C/PHL/CO/20, paras. 22 and 26; CERD/C/CHL/CO/1518, para. 22; CERD/C/PER/CO/14-17, para. 14; CERD/C/CMR/CO/15-18, para. 18; CERD/C/GTM/CO/11, para. 19. See also the Committee‟s Urgent Action-related activity (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/early-warning.htm) in relation to India (communications dated 15 August 2008 and 12 March 2010); Peru (communications dated 3 September 2007 and 7 March 2008); Canada (communication dated 13 March 2009); Suriname (Decision 1 (69), adopted on 18 August 2006). See also jurisprudence from other United Nations human rights treaty bodies, including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concluding observations E/C.12/NIC/CO/4, para. 11 and E/C.12/COL/CO/5, para. 9; and the Human Rights Committee, concluding observations CCPR/C/PAN/CO/3, para. 21. 19