was updated and approved in 2002, following several legal reforms and the entry into force of the 1998 Constitution, and in keeping with articles 34 and 41 of the Substitute Environmental Regulations on Hydrocarbon Operations. The State argued that this study had been “duly and opportunely socialized with the affected communities, although it was never implemented.”250 It also argued that, in accordance with article 37 of these Regulations, “on June 18, 19 and 22, 2002, [the CGC organized] three public presentations on the Environmental Management Plan in the communities of Canelos, Pacayacu and Shauk.” Thus, the State’s initial position before this Court reveals that State authorities sought to endorse these actions by the oil company as forms of consultation. These “presentations” did not include Sarayaku. This “socialization and contact” was conducted by the very same company that sought to carry out the oil exploration and, therefore, it was intended to negotiate its entry into the territory. 189. During the Court delegation’s visit to the Sarayaku territory, when accepting its responsibility in this case, the State acknowledged that it had not carried out a proper prior consultation process (supra para. 23). In other words, in this way the State not only recognized that it had not carried out the consultation, but also - even if it were accepted that such a consultation process could be delegated to private third parties - the State did not indicate what type of measures it had taken to observe, supervise, monitor or participate in the process and thereby safeguard the rights of the Sarayaku People. 190. In addition to the foregoing, members of Sarayaku indicated that there had been a military presence on Sarayaku territory during the CGC incursions251 and that the purpose of this presence was to ensure that the company could carry out its work, in view of their opposition. During the hearing, the State contested that the Army had entered the Sarayaku territory with the intention of militarizing it. 191. It has not been contested that the No. 17 Jungle Brigade252 operated in the area of Block 23 and, in particular, that four military bases were set up around Sarayaku; namely, in Jatún Molino, Shaimi, Pacayaku and Pozo Landa Yaku.253 During the public hearing, when referring to the “peace and life camps,” the witness Ena Santi explained that these camps had been created because they had found out that “soldiers were being brought in from Montalvo [… and they] were very afraid that they would harm [their] husbands; that they would kill them, and that is why [they] were there.”254 The witness Marlon Santi, who was in the “peace and life camps,” stated at the public hearing that “the oil company had two types of security: the so-called private security, provided by a private security company, Jaraseg, and another one, public security, which was provided jointly by the Ecuadorian Army and the National Police.”255 These statements are supported by photographs taken 250 Similarly, during the public hearing held at the Court on July 7, 2011, in response to a question by the Court on the State’s position concerning the right to consultation, the State Agent indicated that “mechanisms existed that […], at that time, could not be considered to fit strictly within the parameters of prior consultation that we now have; but socialization and contact with the communities did take place.” 251 Cf. Affidavit prepared by José María Gualinga Montalvo on June 27, 2011, folio 13. See also affidavit prepared by Gloria Berta Gualinga Vargas on June 27, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10038) and Testimony rendered by Ena Santi before the Court during the public hearing held on July 6, 2011. 252 Cf. Ombudsman’s Office of the province of Pastaza. Decision of April 10, 2003 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4868) 253 The Ministry for Energy and Mines advised that, during a meeting held on February 3 and 4, 2003, in the Sarayaku community, the decision had been taken “[t]o suspend the presence of soldiers and police in the Sarayaku territories.” Report of the Ministry of Energy and Mines on the activities carried out in Block 23 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4786) Map “of petromilitary presence” prepared by the Pastaza Socio-Environmental Information Center (evidence file, tome 9, folio 4970); Ombudsman’s Office of the province of Pastaza. Decision of April 10, 2003 (evidence file, tome 8, folio 4868). 254 When asked by the State official whether she had witnessed these events directly or had only been told about them, Ena Santi answered “I haven’t come here to tell lies. […] I saw them with my own eyes. This isn’t what my husband told me. I was carrying my baby; […] I was there. That is why I have come to bear witness.” Testimony rendered by Ena Santi before the Court during the public hearing held on July 6, 2011. 255 Testimony rendered by Marlon René Santi Gualinga before the Court during the public hearing held on July 6, 2011. 54