66 255. The third guarantee established by the Court contains three obligations. According to the Court, “in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in order to guarantee that restrictions to the property rights of the members of the [indigenous or tribal peoples] by the issuance of concessions within their territory does not amount to a denial of their survival as a tribal people, the State must abide by the following three safeguards: First, the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the [people concerned], in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan […] within the [ancestral] territory. Second, the State must guarantee that the [members of the people concerned] will receive a reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory. Thirdly, the State must ensure that no concession will be issued within [the ancestral] territory unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a prior environmental and social impact assessment. These safeguards are intended to preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that the members of the [people concerned] 328 have with their territory, which in turn ensures their survival as a tribal people.” These three conditions 329 are complementary requirements designed to guarantee their survival as indigenous and tribal peoples. 256. With respect to the first requirement, the organs of the inter-American system have specifically established that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to “be involved in the processes of design, implementation, and evaluation of development projects carried out on their lands and ancestral 330 territories,” and that the State must guarantee that “indigenous peoples be consulted on any matters 331 that might affect them,” “noting that the purpose of such consultations should be to obtain their free and 332 informed consent.” Through the consultation process the participation of the indigenous and tribal peoples must be guaranteed “in all decisions on natural resource projects on their lands and territories, 333 from design, through tendering and award, to execution and evaluation.” 257. For the Court, effective participation consists precisely in the right of the indigenous peoples to prior consultation “in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, 334 investment, exploration or extraction plan […] within [ancestral] territory […] The Court has also considered that, in the case of large scale investment or development plans that would have a major impact within the [indigenous] territory, the State has the obligation, not only to consult the indigenous people, but also to obtain its prior, free, and informed consent, in accordance with its customs and 335 traditions. 258. In this regard, the Court has emphasized that “the obligation to consult, in addition to being a conventional standard, is also a general principle of International Law” and that “nowadays the 328 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraph 129. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245. paragraph 157. 329 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, paragraph 38. 330 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, paragraph 157. 331 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, paragraph 157. 332 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, paragraph 157. See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, paragraph 143. 333 IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, paragraph 248. 334 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraphs 127, 128. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245. paragraphs 159-167. 335 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraph 134.