6 23. The petitioners also asserted that as a consequence of the facts set forth in the last paragraphs, the State violated the indigenous communities’ political rights, as guaranteed in Convention Article 23. Arguments on the consequences of public works carried out in indigenous land 24. The petitioners consider it foreseeable that the public works undertaken in their territory, as well as the intrusions, deforestation and environmental degradation which have taken place without State control will entail a serious risk for the availability of food and the communities’ subsistence activities, bearing in mind the damage caused to the natural resources on which they depend, as well as the invasion of their hunting grounds and gathering areas. This poses a threat to the health, physical 19 integrity and eventually the life of the indigenous population. 25. They assert that States have the duty of taking positive actions to protect a minority’s identity and the rights of its members to enjoy and develop their culture together with the other members of their group. “These positive measures include conducting studies in order to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental incidence that development activities may have upon indigenous 20 peoples” . 26. Petitioners claim that the Government of the Province of Salta and the Argentinean State undertook a public works plan without evaluating the effect that the alteration of the traditionally occupied lands would have upon the culture of the communities that live therein, in violation of the right to culture and to the preservation of the cultural identity of the affected peoples and their members. “The environmental degradation and the alteration of the hunting and gathering grounds in the communities’ ancestral territory prevent the effective use and enjoyment of their traditionally used lands, causing deep alterations of their way of life, because they modify their customs, their social and individual habits, their 21 economic practices and their notions of the world and of their own life.” 27. They argue that “the environmental transformation and degradation of the traditional territories, by the public works undertaken without an assessment of their consequences, as already mentioned, shall clearly affect the petitioner peoples’ possibility of continuing to inhabit the place where they have established, since remote times, their residence”. “In this sense, the environmental degradation and alteration of the hunting and gathering fields within the ancestral territory of the petitioner peoples (…) will prevent the traditional use and enjoyment of their place of residence, and shall provoke deep alterations in the way of life of each member of the communities and of our families. They will alter our 22 customs, our social and individual habits and our economic practices.” Access to justice and judicial protection 28. The petitioners argue that the State of Argentina violated the right to judicial protection with the guarantees of due process, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. (a) First, the petitioners assert that they resorted to the domestic courts to demand socioenvironmental impact assessments, by means of the acción de amparo, but their petition was rejected at all levels, including the Supreme Court of Justice. They argue that their right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention was violated, because the conduct of the proceedings was not respectful of the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention, specifically because no decision in the law was adopted: “we are facing a judgment that fully ignores the 19 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 20 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 21 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 22 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999.