11 16. The Court observes that on March 7, 2008, the Inter-American Commission received the first petition and request for adoption of provisional measures in relation to the instant case. The Commission issued precautionary measures in favor of the Ngöbe indigenous communities on June 17, 2009. On August 5, 2009, the Commission approved the corresponding report on admissibility.10 On January 19, 2010, the request for provisional measures was filed before this Court, almost two years after the initial request for precautionary protection in relation to these events. Given that the request for provisional measures is based on the requirement of urgency, the Court deems that the Inter-American Commission should proceed with greater speed on the decision on this petition. On the contrary, there would be an inconsistency in that the urgency claimed to request provisional measures does not imply an urgent consideration regarding the assessment of merits of the petition. 17. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that none the requirements established by Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure are present, therefore the request for provisional measures submitted by the Inter-American Commission should be dismissed. * * * 18. Without detriment to that presented in the paragraphs above, the Court calls to mind that the State has the constant and permanent duty to comply with the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and liberties recognized therein and to guarantee the free and full exercise of those rights to any individual subject to its jurisdiction.11 Specifically, the Court emphasizes its jurisprudence in the sense that while the American Convention does not prohibit per se the issuance of concessions for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous or tribal territories, the legitimate restriction to the right of community property demands: i) conducting prior tests on the environmental and social impact; ii) conducting consultations with the affected communities regarding the development projects carried out in the traditionally occupied territories; and, when dealing with large-scale development or investment plans, obtain the free, informed and prior consent of the communities, according to their customs and traditions,12 and iii) share the reasonable benefits with them.13 In addition, a crucial factor to consider is whether the restriction implies a denial of traditions and customs in a way that endangers the subsistence of the group and its members.14 The obligation to guarantee the effective participation of the members of the communities or indigenous or tribal towns requires the State to accept and provide information, and implies constant communication between the parties. The consultations should be conducted in 10 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Report 75/09, Petition 286-08, Admissibility, Ngöbe Indigenous Community and their members in the Changuinola River Valley, Panama, August 5, 2009. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering three; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Considering twelve, Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering twenty-two. 12 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Surinam. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 134. 13 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Surinam, supra note 12, para. 134. 14 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Surinam, supra note 12, para. 128.