59 211. In application of these safeguards and limitations, for purposes of granting extractive concessions or undertaking development or investment plans or projects over natural resources, the Inter-American Court has designed a three-tier test to be applied by States when they are considering their approval: (a) compliance with the expropriation requirements of Article 21; (b) ensuring the physical and cultural survival of the group; and (c) fulfilling the procedural guarantees of participation, environmental impact assessment, and benefit sharing. Each one of the three components helps ensure 200 or safeguard the respective indigenous or tribal peoples in the exercise of their rights. The requirements also “are consistent with the observations of the Human Rights Committee, the text of 201 several international instruments, and the practice in several States Parties to the Convention.” They 202 are equally consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 212. It is necessary to comply with these requirements when the “natural resource is one that has been traditionally used by the members of the [corresponding] people in a manner inextricably related 203 to their survival.” The requirements also apply when the projects will have an impact upon any natural resources that are critical for the physical and cultural survival of such communities; thus, in general terms, it is necessary to comply with all of these requirements even with regard to concessions within ancestral territory that impact natural resources which have not been traditionally used by members of the corresponding community, if their extraction will necessarily affect other resources that are vital to their 204 way of life. Compliance with the requirements is mandatory, even if there are domestic law provisions that reserve for the State the property of the subsoil resources, or other natural resources in indigenous territories; such is the case even when there are constitutional provisions by which subsurface resources 205 in indigenous territories belong to the State . First requirement: compliance with the general conditions to be met in cases of expropriation 213. States must comply with the requirements established in Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights for cases of expropriation. As explained by the Court, “the protection of the right to property under Article 21 of the Convention is not absolute (…). Although the Court recognizes the interconnectedness between the right of members of indigenous and tribal peoples to the use and enjoyment of their lands and their right to those resources necessary for their survival, said property rights, like many other rights recognized in the Convention, are subject to certain limitations and restrictions. In this sense, Article 21 of the Convention states that the ‘law may subordinate [the] use and enjoyment [of property] to the interest of society’. Thus, the Court has previously held that, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, a State may restrict the use and enjoyment of the right to property where the restrictions are: a) previously established by law; b) necessary; c) proportional, and d) with the 206 207 aim of achieving a legitimate objective in a democratic society. ” 200 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. 130. 201 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. 130. La Corte Interamericana cita en este punto: el Convenio 169 de la OIT; la Política Operacional OP/BP 4.10 del Banco Mundial; el Comentario General 23 del Comité de Derechos Humanos, párrafo 7; y la Recomendación General 23 del Comité para la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial, párrafo 4(d). 202 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. 203 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. 144. 204 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. 155. 205 CIDH, Tercer Informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Colombia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9 rev. 1, 26 de febrero de 1999, párrs. 29-31 y Recomendación 4. 206 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, paras. 144-145 citing (mutatis mutandi) Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 96; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, Continúa…