127. The representatives argued that the State had incurred international responsibility for violating Articles 21, 13 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of members of the Sarayaku People directly, because it permitted and supported the incursion of third parties into Sarayaku territory, and because it failed to protect their use and enjoyment of the natural resources found therein, which are the basis of their subsistence. They alleged the same violations as the Commission, based on the following facts and circumstances: (i) the State not only signed the contract with the oil company without consulting the community and obtaining its consent, but also permitted and supported (through the “militarization of the territory”) the illegal incursion of the CGC into the territory, despite the community’s repeated opposition; (ii) the unauthorized use and destruction of the territory owing to the incursion of the oil company between November 2002 and February 2003, when nearly 200 kilometers of primary forest were cleared. This action affected the resources of the territory, which is particularly serious given the community’s dependence on these resources for its subsistence; (iii) the abandoning of explosives on the territory, and (iv) the destruction of sacred places. The representatives added that, while the entire territory was sacred, the company destroyed specific sites of special cultural and spiritual value. Thus, the granting and subsequent implementation of the oil concession took place without the State having guaranteed the effective participation of the members of the community by means of consultations and free, prior and informed consent according to its traditions and customs, so that they would obtain reasonable benefits from the plan, and without obtaining a preliminary study of the social and environmental impact conducted by an independent entity under the supervision of the State. The representatives also claimed that the violation of Article 21 is aggravated by the State’s failure to comply with the precautionary measures of the Commission and the provisional measures ordered by the Court, particularly its failure to remove the pentolite from the territory. 128. The State argued that, when signing the oil exploration and exploitation contract with the CGC in 1996, it was under no obligation to initiate a prior consultation process, or to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of the Sarayaku People, since it had not yet ratified ILO Convention 169 and because the Constitution at that time contained no provision in this regard. Thus, based on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, legally, this obligation was non-existent for Ecuador. The State emphasized that this in no way implied any disregard or disrespect for the territorial rights of the indigenous peoples, which was the reason that the State granted the territory to the Sarayaku People. However, this is not an unlimited property title because, according to the provisions of this land grant, the State’s authority to build roads or other infrastructure is not restricted and its institutions and Armed and Police Forces have free access to the territory in order to fulfill their constitutional obligations. Furthermore, it argued that the underground natural resources belong to the State, which may exploit them without interference provided that it does so in accordance with environmental protection standards. 129. The State also pointed out that, even if there was no obligation to engage in prior consultation, the State considered that the participation of the indigenous peoples in matters that affect them and the right to be consulted are essential for their social and cultural development. However, it argued that there is no regulation authorizing indigenous communities to exercise a “right of veto” over a decision made by the State concerning the exploitation of natural resources, particularly those underground. 130. The State added that, despite the lack of any obligation in this regard, in August 2002 the CGC, the presumed victims, and other communities signed an agreement to “carry out the seismic 2D survey” acknowledging that the company had repeatedly provided appropriate and timely information about the seismic project prior to its execution. The State also argued that the company had sought an understanding with the communities in order to carry out its contractual activities; that an environmental impact assessment was carried out in 1997, which had also been duly and properly “socialized” with the affected communities, although “in practice it was never implemented.” Furthermore, when the 1998 Constitution entered into force, the Environmental Management Plan was updated. 131. The State indicated that the constant and repeated lack of cooperation and the reactive attitude of the members of the Sarayaku People had prevented the full implementation of the 33