62 otherwise clarified or protected, without effective consultations with and the informed consent of the 223 [respective] people and with resulting environmental damage” . 218. In order to be consistent with inter-American human rights law, consultation with indigenous peoples must meet certain requirements: it must be prior, that is, it must be developed “preceding the design and execution of natural resource projects on the ancestral lands and territories of 224 indigenous peoples;” it must be culturally adequate and take into account the respective people’s 225 traditional decision-making methods, as well as their own forms of representation; it must be informed, which requires the full provision of precise information on the nature and consequences of the consulted 226 project to the communities; and it must be conducted in good faith and with the aim of reaching an 227 agreement. 223 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 153, 194 and 197. Corte IDH. Caso de la Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Vs. Nicaragua. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 31 de agosto de 2001. Serie C No. 79, párr. 153-2. Applying this rule, in the Awas Tingni case the Inter-American court concluded that the state had “violated the right of the members of the Mayagna Awas Tingni Community to the use and enjoyment of their property”, for having “granted concessions to third parties to utilize the property and resources located in an area which could correspond, fully or in part, to the lands which must be delimited, demarcated, and titled [Corte IDH. Caso de la Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Vs. Nicaragua. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 31 de agosto de 2001. Serie C No. 79,párr. 153] 224 CIDH, Acceso a la Justicia e Inclusión Social: El camino hacia el fortalecimiento de la Democracia en Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, 28 de junio de 2007, párr. 249. In this sense, the inter-American Court’s judgment in the Saramaka case establishes that consultation of indigenous or tribal peoples must take place during the first stages of the development or investment plan or project or the extractive concession: “the Saramakas must be consulted, in accordance with their own traditions, at the early stages of a development or investment plan, not only when the need arises to obtain approval from the community, if such is the case. Early notice provides time for internal discussion within communities and for proper feedback to the State.” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133] 225 Corte IDH, Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 131. In general terms, “all issues related to the consultation process with the [respective] people, as well as those concerning the beneficiaries of the ‘just compensation’ that must be shared, must be determined and resolved by the [respective] people in accordance with their traditional customs and norms” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka Vs. Surinam. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 12 de agosto de 2008 Serie C No. 185, párr. 27]; “in ensuring the effective participation of members of the [respective] people in development or investment plans within their territory, the State has a duty to actively consult with said community according to their customs and traditions” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133.]. States must allow for the effective participation of indigenous and tribal peoples, in accordance with their traditions and customs, in the decision-making processes that relate to extractive concessions or development or investment plans or projects; Articles 21 and 1.1 of the American Convention are violated by not doing so [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 154]. As the Inter-American Court has explained, “consultations must be [conducted] through culturally appropriate procedures” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133], peoples must be consulted “in accordance with their own traditions” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133], and “consultation should take account of the [respective] people’s traditional methods of decision-making.” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133]. 226 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 142. According to the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence, consultation must be informed, in the sense that indigenous peoples must be made “aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, in order that the proposed development or investment plan is accepted knowingly and voluntarily.” [Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 133] The right to participation in decision-making processes related to investment or development plans or projects or extractive concessions, and the right of access to information, are two basic elements to “support and enhance the ability of individuals to safeguard and vindicate” [CIDH, Informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Ecuador. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev.1, 24 de abril de 1997.] the rights to life and personal integrity in situations of serious environmental contamination, and thus contribute to “the quest to guard against environmental conditions which threaten human health” [CIDH, Informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Ecuador. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev.1, 24 de abril de 1997]. As explained by the IACHR, “access to information is a prerequisite for public participation in decision-making and for individuals to be able to monitor and respond to public and private sector action. Individuals have a right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds pursuant to Article 13 of the American Convention. (…) The Government should ensure that [basic information about exploitation activities taking place locally, and about potential risks to their health] as the law in fact requires be submitted is readily accessible to potentially affected individuals.” [CIDH, Informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Ecuador. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev.1, 24 de Continúa…