of measures that directly affect the U’wa people’s physical and cultural integrity and identity and their ancestral lands and territories, without observing that people’s right to prior consultation and without taking the necessary measures to protect their personal, cultural, economic and environmental integrity. 13. They specifically point out that in 1992, under the terms of a partnership agreement signed with the Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos (Ecopetrol), the Sociedad Occidental de Colombia, a subsidiary of the U.S. multinational Occidental Petroleum, started the necessary procedures with the National Institute of Renewable Natural Resources and the Environment (Inderena) to obtain an environmental license for seismic oil exploration in the Samoré block, within U’wa ancestral territory. They contend that Inderena deemed the application to be viable, even though it excluded “the Tamá and El Cocuy national nature parks”. The petitioners state that the Ministry of the Environment also classified the project as viable, but “underscored the matter of community and citizen participation and particularly the question of the U’wa ethnic group that lives within the project’s impact area and location.” They report that in response, a meeting was held with State authorities on January 10 and 11, 1995, where representatives of the U’wa people voiced their opposition to the project and both parties agreed to consider and study the necessary changes. The petitioners state, however, that to their surprise, the Ministry of the Environment regarded those meetings as “prior consultation” and issued Resolution No. 110 on February 3, 1995, by which it granted the requested license. 14. The petitioners state further that on August 29, 1995, the Ombudsperson, serving as representative of the U’wa people, filed a petition seeking a constitutional writ of protection of human rights [acción de tutela] and an appeal seeking nullification of Resolution 110. The petition for a constitutional writ of protection was filed with the Superior Court of Santafé de Bogotá and asked the court to issue an order that the resolution be declared unenforceable, that a consultation process be undertaken and that measures be ordered to effectively protect the rights of the U’wa people. In a decision of September 12, 1995, the Court granted provisional relief and held that “insofar as it concerns the territories occupied by the U’wa people, resolution 110 […] is unenforceable until such time as a proper and legal process of consultation with that community is conducted.” The petitioners report that on October 19, 1995, the Supreme Court overturned that decision; however, in a February 3, 1997 ruling on review, the Constitutional Court revoked the Supreme Court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the Superior Court of Santafé de Bogotá. The petitioners underscore the fact that the Constitutional Court affirmed that “the process followed for issuance of the environmental license was irregular” and ordered that “steps be taken within 30 working days […] to conduct the consultation with the U’wa community.” As for resolution 110, the Court held that “it will remain in effect until such time as the administrative law court rules on the question of [its] validity.” 15. As for the second remedy filed, the petitioners state that on August 29, 1995, the Ombudsperson petitioned the Council of State seeking temporary suspension and complete nullification of resolution 110. They report that by a decision of September 14, 1995, the First Section of the Administrative Law Chamber declined the petition seeking temporary suspension of the resolution being challenged. They further report that on March 4, 1997, the Council of State rejected the claims being made and lifted the Constitutional Court’s order declaring the resolution unenforceable. The Administrative Law Chamber found that “the consultation conducted was not irregular and did not disregard the right to a hearing and a defense.” The petitioners contend that with this decision, internal remedies were exhausted. 16. They point out that at the State’s request, representatives from the Organization of American States (OAS) and Harvard University conducted a study that produced a series of recommendations made to the Colombian State. The petitioners contend, however, that these recommendations were never fully carried out. They report that, on the contrary, thereafter the State continued to take measures without consulting the U’wa people beforehand, thereby violating their right to prior consultation. The petitioners make particular reference to oil exploration and drilling activities said to have occurred at Gibraltar wells 1, 2 and 3, on Line 2D of the Sarare Seismic Program and in the Catleya block, activities that were damaging to the territory of the U’wa People. They also mention the approval of other projects about which the U’wa people were reportedly not consulted, such as the Gibraltar-Bucaramanga gas pipeline; a binational highway that was part of the project for Integration of the South American Regional Infrastructure (IIRSA); a series of mining rights and applications; and the creation of protected natural areas like the “Parque Nacional Natural El Cocuy” which the petitioners claim would overlap nearly 92 thousand hectares of the U’wa Unified Reservation. They also point 3