72. According to the State, by Ministerial Decision No. 197, published in Official Record No. 176 of April 23, 1999, prospecting activities were suspended in Block 23 because CGC “activities [were] being affected by actions against the workers by indigenous organizations and destruction of the camp.” The suspension was ordered in order to continue the implementation of programs to develop community relations, so as to resolve the problems that had arisen.77 The suspension was extended several times up until September 2002.78 E. Facts prior to the seismic survey and incursions into the territory of the Sarayaku People 73. It was argued, without being contested by the State, that on numerous occasions the CGC oil company tried to negotiate access to the Sarayaku People’s territory and to obtain their consent for oil exploration, by actions such as: (a) direct contacts with members of the community, circumventing the indigenous organizational levels; (b) offering to send a medical team to provide care in several Sarayaku communities; however, to receive care, the people would have been required to sign a list, which would have been used subsequently as a letter addressed to the CGC supporting the continuation of its work;79 (c) payment of wages to specific individuals within the communities to recruit others in order to support the seismic survey; (d) offering personal gifts and incentives; (e) forming support groups for the oil exploration activities,80 and (f) offering money, either individually or collectively.81 74. The representatives also alleged that in May 2000, the CGC lawyer visited Sarayaku and offered US$60,000.00 for development projects and 500 jobs for the men of the community. The State did not dispute this. On June 25, 2000, the Sarayaku held a General Assembly at which, in the presence of the CGC representative, it was decided to reject the company’s offer.82 Meanwhile, the neighboring communities of Pakayaku, Shaimi, Jatún Molino and Canelos signed agreements with the CGC.83 exploitation of non-renewable resources on their lands that might have an environmental or cultural impact on them, and were to receive a share of the profits from these projects, to the extent possible, and to receive compensation for the social and environmental damage caused to them (Article 84.5). 77 Cf. Ministerial Decision No. 197, Published in Official Record No 176 (evidence file, tome 14, folios 8653 and 8654). 78 Cf. Decision No. 028-CAD-2001-01-19 ordered the suspension of April 2000 to be extended until April 9, 2001 (evidence file, tome 14, folio 8656) and Decision No. 431-CAD-2001-08-03 of August 2001 accepted a request for a further extension until September 26, 2002 (evidence file, tome 14, folio 8658). 79 Cf. Letter entitled “Community of Independents of Sarayacu Branch O.P.I.P.,” undated (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4818 and ff.); List of signatories of the Chontayacu People, signed on December 31, 2002 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4825 and ff.) and Minutes of the General Assembly of the “CAS – TAYJASARUTA” of January 7, 2003 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4828 and ff.). 80 Cf. Pleadings and motions brief, tome 1, folios 281 and 282; See also affidavit provided by José María Gualinga Montalvo on June 27, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 4815-4816). 81 Cf. Decision taken by the Association Sarayaku-OPIP at the meeting held with the CGC on June 25, 2000 (evidence file, tome 8, folios 4812 and 4813); Letter of April 13, 2002, addressed to the Minister of Energy and Mines by the Sarayaku Association (evidence file, tome 8, folios 4815 and 4816). 82 Cf. Decision taken by the Sarayacu-OPIP Association at the meeting held with the CGC on June 25, 2000 (evidence file, tome 10, folios 6109 and 6110). The Sarayaku Association and the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP), have taken the following decisions: “Sarayaku ratifies its decision not to accept any oil company, be it CGC and/or other oil, mining or lumber companies; based on this decision, there will be no further dialogue or negotiation with CGC; it decides not to accept the US$60,000 from the agreement between the provincial council and the CGC, because this money would create inter-community conflicts with serious consequences; Sarayaku will not accept further meetings instigated by the CGC with other communities of the Block; in accordance with these decisions, the definitive cancellation of the contract between the Ecuadorian State and the CGC in Block 23 is hereby requested. These decisions are supported by the collective rights recognized by the Ecuadorian Constitution; by ILO Convention No. 169, and by other laws and international agencies that protect the rights of indigenous peoples.” 83 Cf. As of February 2003 CGC had invested US$350,000 in social projects in these four communities. El Comercio newspaper of February 7, 2003, “Mediación para el conflicto de Sarayacu” (evidence file, tome 11, folio 6541). See also the affidavit of José María Gualinga Montalvo of June 27, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10018). 21