People’s settlement in the Amazonian jungle is extremely inaccessible. Finally, they argued that the State failed to investigate or to punish the attacks on freedom of movement by third parties. 136. The State argued that the Commission and the representatives had not provided conclusive evidence to establish reliably that there had been any violation; on the contrary, it had been proved that the State had guaranteed this and other rights of the People. Moreover, it indicated that the land grant made by the IERAC in 1992 clearly establishes that this did not affect freedom of movement. It also argued that, during the seven years that the provisional measures had been in force, “no unfortunate events have been reported.” A.3 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights154 137. The representatives argued that Ecuador had violated the right to culture of the members of the Sarayaku People, contained in Article 26 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. They argued that, by granting the concession in the territory of the Sarayaku People without consulting them, the State had violated their right to culture, given their special relationship with their territory. They also mentioned that this violation occurred due to the State’s lack of action when the company entered the area to protect and preserve sacred places of cultural importance as well as traditional practices, the celebration of rites and other daily activities that form part of their cultural identity, which caused serious damage to fundamental aspects of the Sarayaku worldview and culture. The representatives indicated that the suspension of the People’s daily activities and the dedication of the adults to the defense of the territory had a profound impact on the teaching of cultural traditions and rituals to the children and young people, as well as on the transmission and perpetuation of the elders’ spiritual knowledge. 138. The Commission did not allege a violation of Article 26 of the Convention and did not refer to the arguments of the representatives 139. The State argued that Article 26 of the Convention had not been violated. It asserted that the right to culture is a central concern of the State and that some of the most important indicators of this concern are reflected in the institutional framework that Ecuador has developed in accordance with the constitutional principles. The State also argued that the representatives define culture “based on a fixed ethnic notion” and therefore “do not grasp the integration and polysemy of the cultural dimension of the indigenous peoples or, in general, any components of urban or rural human socialization.” A.4 Domestic Legal Effects155 140. The Commission argued that the State had not adopted domestic legal provisions to guarantee the right of access to information and the right to prior consultation, and was therefore responsible for violating Article 2 of the Convention. In particular, the Commission observed that Decree No. 1040 of April 2008 makes no mention of the right of access to information or the right to prior consultation of the indigenous peoples under the applicable international standards, and does not require that information provided by so-called “social participation mechanisms” be accessible, sufficient and timely, in the terms of the application. Furthermore, although both the 1998 and the 2008 Constitutions recognize the right to prior consultation, to date Ecuador does not have a specific 154 Article 26 of the American Convention states: “The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, by legislative or other appropriate means.” 155 Article 2 of the American Convention stipulates: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 35