spot investigations,” which can be, inter alia, visits to detention centers, 12 visits to gather documentation and obtain information on the situation in the field, 13 or visits to determine the occurrence of facts alleged by the parties. 14 The International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia have also carried out fact-finding missions. 14. During the public hearing held in this case, one of the alleged victims, Ena Santi requested the presence of the Court in Sarayaku, stating in her testimony: “The State says that it has provided projects to benefit Sarayaku. The State did provide some projects […] but it did not fulfill its commitments… you are invited to Sarayaku to verify the situation of the projects that the State has provided” (Minute 49.05 – 49.25 of the recording). “Honorable Judges of the Inter-American Court, I am inviting you to come to Sarayaku to verify the Government’s projects in situ, to see whether there is a beautiful air strip made by the State, whether there are bridges that have been completed, and all the infrastructure they say they have given to the Sarayaku People; come to Sarayaku; we will be waiting for you […]” (Minute 55.00 - 55.22 of the recording). 15. Although the State requested a visit to “the Río Bobonaza Communities,” the case submitted to the consideration of the Court refers to facts that are alleged to have occurred in Sarayaku territory and the surrounding areas. Given the nature of the purpose of the litigation, the Court finds it useful to carry out, on a special and exceptional basis, in application of Article 58(a) and 58(b) of its Rules of Procedure and to complement the body of evidence, measures designed to obtain additional information on the situation of the alleged victims and the places where some of the alleged facts have taken place, by means of a visit to the territory of the Kichwa People of Sarayaku in Ecuador by a delegation from the Court composed of its President, its Secretary and two members of the Secretariat staff. 16. In keeping with the adversarial principle and in order to maintain the procedural balance, the visit will be carried out with the participation of representatives of the alleged victims, the Inter-American Commission, and the State, if they consider it necessary. 17. The on-site procedures will be carried out in the places on the territory of the Kichwa People of Sarayaku where it is alleged that the facts included in the factual framework of the case took place, provided that safe access can be guaranteed and the planned timetable is respected. 18. Regarding the way in which this procedure will be carried out, the State must adopt the necessary measures to: a) Make, in coordination with the Secretariat of the Court, the administrative and logistic preparations to arrange travel and accommodation and to cover the pertinent expenses to allow the Court’s delegation to carry out the procedure. b) Coordinate the execution of the procedure with the representatives of the alleged victims and the Inter-American Commission. Cf. E.C.H.R., Nazarenko v. Ukraine, Application No. 39483/98, Judgment of April 29, 2003; Cenbauer v. Croatia, Application 73786/01, Judgment of March 9, 2006, and Benzan v. Croatia, Application No. 62912/00, Judgment of November 8, 2002. 12 13 Cf. E.C.H.R., Tekdağ v. Turkey, Application No. 27699/95, Judgment of January 15, 2004, and Sufi Elmi v. the United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, Judgment of June 25, 2011. 14 Cf. E.C.H.R., Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, Applications Nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, Judgment of July 1, 2010, and Osmanoğlu v. Turkey, Application No. 48804/99, Judgment of January 24, 2008. 6