the ICCPR, which cannot be restricted when interpreting the American Convention in this case, confer on the members of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples the right to the enjoyment of their property in keeping with their community-based tradition.”6 10. Thus, the Court determined that, applying the foregoing criteria to the instant case, “as indigenous peoples, the Kaliña and Lokono peoples are protected by international human rights law which guarantees the right to the collective territory they have used and occupied traditionally, derived from the use and occupation of the land and of the resources necessary for their physical and cultural survival and, also, that the State has the obligation to adopt special measures to recognize, respect, protect and guarantee to their members the right to communal ownership of this territory.”7 11. Furthermore, the Court considered that, for the effect of this case, the right to consultation was also founded on Article 23 of the American Convention, in ligt of the international standards.8 To this end, it indicated that the State must have available “mechanisms for the effective participation of the indigenous peoples using procedures that are culturally adapted to the decision-making of such peoples. This is not only a matter of public interest, but also forms part of the exercise of their right to take part in any decision-making on matters that affect their interests, in accordance with their own procedures and institutions, in relation to Article 23 of the American Convention.” 9 12. Consequently, it is clear that the effective participation mentioned in Chapter B.4, paragraphs 204 to 212 of the Judgment must be understood to guarantee prior, free and informed consultation, in accordance with the case law evolved by this Court in this regard. 13. Regarding the moment at which the prior consultation should be conducted, the Court established that: 206. In this regard, the Court has already established that the State must ensure the effective participation “with regard to any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan.”10 In particular, the Court referred to development and investment plans as “any activity that may affect the integrity of the lands and natural resources […]; specifically, any proposal related to logging or mining concessions.” 11 6 Cf. Paragraphs 122, 123 and 124 of the Judgment. 7 Paragraph 125 of the Judgment. 8 Article 18 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295). See also, article 29 of the Declaration. Also, article 6 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter states that: “It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development […].” 9 Paragraph 203 of the Judgment. 10 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 129. Likewise, in the case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, the Court indicated that the consultation must take place beforehand, and must be carried out starting in the initial stages of the development or investment plan so that the indigenous and tribal peoples may truly participate and influence the decision-making process. Cf. Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 217. 11 Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 129. 4