recognition of those rights.3 It also observes that in this case, the petitioners pursued a number of judicial actions to replace the missing pages, with no results. The Commission therefore concludes that in this case, an exception applies to the requirement of exhausting internal remedies established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention and 31(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure as regards the titling process for the land of the Agua Caliente Community. 39. As far as the granting of the mining license and the environmental impact study, the petitioners hold that on January 13, 2006, environmental and indigenous organizations filed for a writ of amparo against MARN before the Civil and Commercial Appellate Court questioning the study and highlighting the lack of prior consultation and the fact that information on the study was neither circulated in the area of the affected communities nor made available in the indigenous language. On November 27, 2006, the presiding Civil and Mercantile Appellate Court of the Constitutional Court of Protection granted the writ of protection requested and ordered the ministry to resolve the lack of participation of the communities affected in a revised environmental impact study. 40. The State maintains that although the community’s right to oppose the project expired, they have other mechanisms available such as constitutional amparo appeals and summary stay of dangerous works through a civil proceeding if they believe there is some threat to collective or common rights. The State also points to the existence of procedures for raising opposition before the General Mining Directorate, provided for in the Mining Law. Regarding the failure to publish the environmental impact study, the State indicates that the community can file a complaint alleging disobedience of a public official over the failure to comply with the order to take the community’s participation into account. 41. The Commission has indicated with regard to prior consultation that the condition of timeliness means the information must be provided sufficiently in advance of any authorization or beginning of negotiations, taking into account the consultation process and the time required for indigenous communities in question to make decisions. In this regard, it has also been established that access to relevant information is necessary for accessing judicial remedies, as the lack of information on corporate operations can make it very difficult for affected people or communities to collect the evidence necessary to pursue legal actions. Thus, a lack of access to or failure to disclose information can harm the right to effective judicial protection. 4 42. Based on the documentation provided by the petitioners, the Commission observes that on December 2, 2005, almost one month after the publication of the study, Gerardo Tzalam Caal filed a complaint with MARN alleging that he had not been aware of the existence of the study because the newspaper in which it was published does not circulate in his community. When he failed to receive a response, on January 17, 2006, he filed for a writ of amparo against the general director of MARN. It was granted on November 27, 2006, and MARN general director was ordered to notify the November 5, 2006, resolution to not admit the petition filed on December 2, 2005, for being filed extemporaneously. Therefore, according to the information available, the merits of the claim filed by Mr. Tzalam Caal less than one month after the publication of the study were never examined. 43. Regarding the State’s argument that a challenge procedure was enshrined in the Mining Law, the Commission finds that it has not resulted in a remedy that is accessible to the community given that it must be submitted within 30 days and, according to the petitioners, the community did not immediately have access to it. 44. Taking this into account, the Commission therefore concludes that in this case, an exception applies to the requirement of exhausting internal remedies established in Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention and 31(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure. 3 IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 56/09, December 30, 2009, para. 85. 4IACHR, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-Descendent Communities and Natural Resources: Human Rights Protection in the Context of Extraction, Exploitation, and Development Activities OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 47/15, December 31, 2015, paras. 108 and 115. 7