221. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.293 In other words, the States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights established in the Convention, but must also avoid enacting laws that prevent the free exercise of those rights, and ensure that laws that protect these rights are not annulled or amended.294 In sum, “the State has the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to make the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized by the Convention effective.”295 222. Despite the fact that, under the above-mentioned provisions, the State was obliged to consult the Sarayaku People, the Court has no information that, before December 9, 2002, the State had detailed regulations on prior consultation that established, inter alia, the moment at which the consultation should take place, its purpose, those who should be consulted, the phases of the implementation of activities for which prior consultation was required, the formalization of decisions taken during the consultation or the compensation for the socio-environmental damage caused by the exploitation of natural resources, particularly hydrocarbons. In any case, the 2002 Regulations for Consultations on Hydrocarbon Activities, which had no impact in this case either, were subsequently replaced in April 2008 by the Regulations on the Application of Mechanisms for Social Participation, established in the Environmental Management Act,296 Decree No. 1040, which, as alleged, does not specifically establish consultation mechanisms, and this was not contested by the State. 223. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State indicated that it was “in the process of adopting legislative measures for constitutional harmonization” and that during “the transition period established in the 2008 Constitution […] itself, the legislative packages to be approved were indicated as a priority.” In other words, the State acknowledges that, up until its brief in answer to this case, it did not have any regulatory provisions for constitutional harmonization that ensured the effective application of the domestic norms on prior consultation.297 224. Therefore, the Court concludes that, even though neither the Commission nor the representatives explained why the lack of regulations prior to December 2002 constituted a real obstacle to the effectiveness of the right to prior consultation of the Sarayaku People, the State itself recognized that it was currently undergoing a period of transition to adapt its regulatory and legislative provisions in order to make the right to prior consultation effective for the indigenous peoples of Ecuador. 293 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 12, para. 50, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para 140. 294 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 140, and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207 295 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Las Dos Erres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 240. 296 Cf. Regulations for application of the social participation mechanisms established in the Environmental Management Act, Decree No. 1040, in the petitioners’ communication of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4154 and ff.). 297 Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples in his November 2010 observations on the progress made and challenges faced in the implementation of the constitutional guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, indicated that the State should “take into account the proposals made by CONAIE during the discussions held, as well as any new proposals for reform, including in relation to the Mining Act, the Law on Water Resources, the Law on Intercultural Bilingual Education, the Organic Code on Territorial Organization, Autonomy and Decentralization, and the Environmental Code, with a view to reaching agreements with indigenous peoples on these and other laws, and to reform and implement the laws in accordance with the rights of indigenous peoples guaranteed in the 2008 Constitution and in international human rights instruments.” United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, Observations on the progress made and challenges faced in the implementation of the constitutional guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples I Ecuador, A/HRC/15/37/Add.7, 13 September 2010, para. 56. 64