Correa Delgado, addressed the President of the Court “to ratify and formalize the invitation issued by the State’s agents at the hearing held in San Jose, Costa Rica […] [for] the Inter-American Court to make an official visit [to his country].” Subsequently, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Commission and the representatives were given an opportunity to submit their observations in this regard. 19. By an Order of January 20, 2012, of the President of the Court,19 pursuant to Articles 4, 15(1), 26(1), 26(2), 31(2), 53, 55, 58 and 60 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and in consultation with the other members of the Court, it was decided to appoint a delegation from the Court, headed by the President, to visit the territory of the Sarayaku People in Ecuador.20 In addition, the Court rejected the State’s request for an additional expert appraisal 20. The purpose of the said visit would be to take “measures aimed at obtaining additional information about the situation of the presumed victims and the places where some of the alleged events took place.” In addition, “[i]n accordance with the adversarial principle, and in order to maintain procedural equality, [it was indicated that] the representatives of the presumed victims, the Inter-American Commission and the State [would] participate in the visit, if they considered it necessary.” Lastly, it was indicated that “the on-site procedure [would] take place in parts of the Sarayaku territory where the alleged events included in the factual framework of the case had occurred.”21 21. For the first time in the history of the Inter-American Court’s judicial practice, a delegation of judges conducted a proceeding at the site of the events of a contentious case submitted to its jurisdiction. Thus, on April 21, 2012, a delegation from the Court, accompanied by delegations from the Commission, the representatives, and the State, visited the territory of the Sarayaku People. 22 Upon arrival, the delegations were received by numerous members of the Sarayaku People. After crossing the Bobonaza River in canoes, they went to the People’s assembly house (Tayjasaruta), where they were received by the President, José Gualinga, the kurakas, the yachaks and other authorities and members of the People. Also present were representatives from other indigenous communities of Ecuador. There, the Court’s delegation heard numerous statements from members of the Sarayaku, including young people, women, men, the elderly and children from the community,23 who shared their experiences, views and expectations about their way of life, their there are completed bridges, and all of the other infrastructure they claim to have given the Sarayaku People. Please come to Sarayaku, we will be waiting for you […].” (Minute 55.00 - 55.22 of the recording). 19 Cf. Case of the Kíchwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of January 20, 2012. Available at http://Corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/sarayaku1.pdf 20 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of January 20, 2012, para. 17. 21 The Order considered that “although the State requested a visit to ‘the Rio Bobonaza Communities,’ the case submitted to the consideration of the Court referred to events that allegedly occurred on Sarayaku territory and surrounding areas”; therefore, it was decided to limit the said visit to its territory, which is not affected by the fact that a visit was also made to the community that lives in the area known as Jatun Molino, in response to the corresponding proposal by the representatives and the State (Brief of the representatives of the presumed victims of February 20, 2012 and brief of the State of March 13, 2012). In this regard, the Court considers it necessary to clarify that the purpose of this case has been to determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of the American Convention to the detriment of the Sarayaku People. The Court is aware that this indigenous community lives in a territory where there are other indigenous communities and that, naturally, links exist between them and there may be both divergent and converging interests and rights of other communities. However, in the context of the present case, it is not for this Court to make determinations regarding other communities, populations or persons who are not petitioners in this case. 22 The Court’s delegation that made the visit consisted of the President of the Court, Judge Diego Garcia-Sayán, Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, the Secretary Pablo Saavedra Alessandri and the Secretariat lawyers, Olger I. González Espinosa, coordinator, and Jorge Errandonea. Also, the following were present for the State of Ecuador: the Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Presidency of the Republic, Alexis Mera, the Minister of Justice, Johana Pesántez, the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marco Albuja, and the Executive Secretary of ECORAE, anthropologist Carlos Viteri, among other State officials. And the Inter-American Commission was represented by the lawyers Isabel Madariaga and Karla I. Quintana. Lastly, Mario Melo and Viviana Kristicevic represented the representatives. 23 Among others, the Court heard statements from Narsiza Gualinga, representative of Shiwakocha; Holger Cisneros, representative of Shiwakocha; Franco Viteri, representative of Pista; Digna Gualinga, representative of Pista; Lenin Gualinga, 8