5 19. Finally, the petitioners consider that the State is responsible for violating the right to property, “in having consented to and tolerated the illegitimate actions of private parties such as the tending of wire fences, logging, cattle grazing and the like”. Arguments related to the lack of prior consultation and environmental impact assessment of the public works carried out in their territory; to the right of access to information; and to political rights 20. Petitioners asserted in the initial petition that there was a risk of deep alterations in the territory caused by State undertakings, which were not subject to consultation and lacked an impact assessment: “the route of the roads will traverse almost all of the area inhabited by our communities. The projected urbanization, which includes the construction of hotels, tourist centers, houses and businesses, the arrival of a new population to provide the programmed services and consume them, the transit of vehicles along the new roads, the smoke, the noise, the habits and customs of people who are alien to the communities, among other innovations, will cause a radical change in the territory, which could well be described in its present state as a wild forested area, inhabited by wild animals and without important 14 signs of urbanization.” The petitioners point out that the communities that form part of the Association belong to hunter-gatherer indigenous peoples, economic activities that necessarily require an availability of fruits, fish and wild animals, and these resources are threatened by different factors associated to the public works program undertaken by the Government of Salta, which include the introduction of a population that is alien to the area, environmental alterations and changes in land use. 21. Petitioners consider that the project to construct an international bridge and its surrounding works, roads and buildings, undertaken by the Province of Salta, will modify their ancestral way of life, and “even though we do not oppose the introduction of improvements, we demand that they are made after having previously analyzed the socio-environmental impact that they will have on our communities, and taking into consideration the interests and opinion of those who have historically 15 occupied this land.” Consequently, they hold that “the works under construction can destroy our communities, if the necessary prior impact assessments are not conducted, thereby violating rights as 16 fundamental as life, physical integrity and protection of the family, among many others.” 22. The petitioners consider that the lack of consultation and environmental impact assessments violate, inter alia, the indigenous communities’ right of access to information, protected by Article 13 of the American Convention, which must be interpreted, as established in Article 29, in accordance with Articles 75 paragraph 17 of the Argentinean Constitution, and with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of ILO Convention 169; and they conclude, on the grounds of that interpretation, that “the conduct assumed by the State in the sense of not producing information about the environmental and cultural impact of the undertaking, which is indispensable for us indigenous people to assume the defense of our interests and participate in that way in the decisions on the future of our property, entails a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention. The lack of consultation on the project, and failure to afford us adequate access to the public information related to the design and development of these public works 17 was also a violation of Article 13.” In particular, “the Government of Salta carried out a popular consultation referendum that does not constitute an adequate procedure of consultation with the indigenous communities (in the terms of ILO Convention 169), and not only failed to inform the 18 communities in due manner, but took care of disseminating malicious information.” 14 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 15 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 16 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 17 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 18 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007.