Let us reject supporters betrayal to native peoples. If one is going to be consulted so that they come to your House, but you have no right not to let them enter, then what the hell I will call if I can not prevent you entering it? It is a paragraph without sense but that leads to the Suppression of rights to indigenous communities is what it says in article 3 paragraph B in the last lines, there nothing else looks bad faith of those who conceived this document: the right of inquiry not granted to LAS populations right of VETO. In a dialogue may not be impacting one of the dialogue, they have to be the same conditions for dialogue, but if this go, already crippled my rights in my right to decide if you are affected. What goes into inconsistency in paragraph G which concerns recognition of participate politically and legally. If there is recognition, then the position of veto on decisions affecting their domains, both is incongruous cultural, social, and territorial. As There is such inconsistency in a court, they have asked the diffuse control, which earned the dispute, before any demand that had been made to having taken a decision contrary to the indigenous or native peoples. It also goes against the principle of freedom. The same fact to remove the right of veto to a query, the attentive and coerces, denaturalize those same principles.But there’s a catch that nobody has seen undermines the draft law and is regards the specialised technical agency in which representation of indigenous or native peoples is reduced to only four representatives, however governmental and specialized advisors of the Government are in numerical superiority, of almost seven members, which may be adopted by a simple majority, any project that will benefit the coffers of transnational corporations and worsening the situation of indigenous or native peoples.