of its decision conditional upon the ruling from the Council of State, which was issued on March 4, 1997 and denied the plaintiffs’ claims. It thus contends that “the issue in dispute is that in the Indigenous Community’s view, the consultation was not done in the manner prescribed by law”, a matter that the State contends was decided by the Council of State, the appropriate forum in the Colombian legal system. 22. At the same time, it states that “it is mindful of the U’wa people’s interest in defending their cultural integrity” and that it therefore “continue[d] fostering the measures necessary to ensure effective protection of their constitutional rights.” Specifically, it points out that it called upon the OAS General Secretariat to enlist experts from Harvard University to conduct an on-site investigation leading to the establishment of a method of dialogue and a model of behavior and management for projects conducted in areas in which indigenous communities lived. It reports that between May and August 1997, members of Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs and the OAS Unit for the Promotion of Democracy conducted visits, field work and interviews with members of the U’wa people, representatives of the oil companies and state officials. It reports that in November 1997, the findings of the investigation were presented, which contained a recommendation to the Colombian State for adoption of a series of measures. 23. The State asserts that a number of steps were taken toward effective implementation of the recommended measures. Among these, it highlights the process it developed for prior consultations with the U’wa people’s traditional authorities, which was based on a concerted methodology aimed at protecting the U’wa people’s fundamental rights. It points out that because of the U’wa people’s organizational structure, the process was conducted both with ASCATIDAR, an organization representing the U’wa of the department of Arauca, and with ASOU’WA, which represents the U’wa people in the departments of Boyacá, Santander and Norte de Santander. It describes various stages of the process and emphasizes that the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and the Office of the Ombudsperson were involved in monitoring the process. It points out that the process began in 2004 and ended in 2006 with ASCATIDAR’s disavowal of the project and ASOU’WA’s repeated refusal to participate in it. The State contends that given this situation, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice consulted the Council of State about the legality of the consultation, in order to be able to get the project started. It reports that on February 2, 2006, the Council of State held that the consultation was legal, reasoning that “commencement of work on the petroleum project is not legally precluded by the absence of an agreement between the Government and the affected communities or the latter’s unwarranted reluctance to participate in the prior consultation process.” 24. The State argues that the petroleum project at issue in the prior consultation process has been the same since its start in 1992, when the oil company applied for the environmental license. It explains that in 2002, ECOPETROL redesigned the Samoré block to form the Sirirí and Catleya blocks “for purposes of exploration prospectivity.” The State therefore argues that the process of prior consultation between the State and the U’wa people has been the same since the start, even though its execution has been separated by stages. It further contends that the controversy has been the same from the outset, and centers around the prior consultation process and the U’wa people’s participation in the decision on the oil project. In short, it argues that “thanks to a concerted effort on the part of national agencies and even international organizations and institutions all steps and mechanisms available to [the State] were used” with a view to resolving the case in question. It is therefore requesting that the petition be declared inadmissible since the claims made by the petitioners concerning the absence of an adequate prior consultation process do not tend to establish violations of the human rights protected under the American Convention. 25. It further maintains that the petitioners’ observations regarding the alleged existence of irregular drilling rights and applications for oil exploration within U’wa territory do not tend to establish violations of the American Convention, since the State contends that the rights that the petitioners are referencing were granted in accordance with the legal requirements; they have either been cancelled or the necessary measures have been taken to establish whether indigenous communities are affected and, if so, to conduct a prior consultation process before commencing the exploration and drilling activities. Further the State contends that construction of the Gibraltar-Bucaramanga gas pipeline was done in full compliance with the legal requirements, while respecting the U’wa people’s integrity; the competent authorities have addressed any complaints that the community has brought. 5