47 Decree Nº 261-2000 (supra para. 86). The State indicated that the Secretary of State through its Offices of Justice and Human Rights had programmed a method to carry out workshops and provided evidence that said workshops referred to, among others “Punta Izopo”. 180 Even though the State argued that these would be “carr[ied] out with the participation of the petitioners OFRANEH,” it did not present evidentiary elements proving that a consultation process was carried out with the Community regarding the creation of the national park and the preparation of the Management Plan. 169. On the contrary, a document prepared by the CODETT states that “we have become aware through investigations of the CODETT that the Punta Izopo Mountain will be declared a wildlife protection area.”181 Similarly, the presumed victim Ángel Castro stated at this case’s public hearing that “[w]e are not aware of the [environmental or social impact] study [regarding Punta Izopo,] because it was carried out without any type of consultation to the Communities of Triunfo de la Cruz.” Additionally, the witness Clara Flores stated, in general terms with regard to the making of decisions on the Community’s territory that “[n]o, no consultation has been carried out.”182 170. The Court verified that, at least since March 28, 1996, the State had an international obligation to carry out a consultation procedure with the Community. The Decree that created the national park dates from the year 2000. Additionally, it can be concluded from the evidence provided that a part of the lands granted by the State to the Community in full ownership in 1993 overlap with a certain part of the protected area, thus affecting it directly. Therefore, lack of consultation with the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, regarding the creation of the Punta Izopo protected area, constitutes a violation of their right to consultation, for which the State of Honduras is responsible. 171. Regarding the Management Plan for this national park, there is no evidence that said Plan was consulted with the Community. This Court recalls Article 6 of Convention 169 of the ILO and Article 32(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and points out that the latter states that the peoples “have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.” The Management Plan constitutes a measure that can affect the Community’s lands and their right to make decisions considered convenient and relevant in this sense, reason for which it should have been consulted with the Community, at least regarding the part of the national park that overlaps with the lands granted by the State to the Community. Therefore, the State’s inability to consult with the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz on the Management Plan of the “Punta Izopo” protected area constitutes a violation of their right to consultation. 172. Additionally, the representatives referred to the “Punta Izopo resort” project. They indicated that around 39,611.02 m2 of land were sold to the company “Punta Hisopo Resort R.L. de C.V.” and other individuals.183 However, the Court does not have the necessary evidentiary elements to determine if said project directly affected the Community, thus it cannot issue a judgment regarding a possible violation of the right to consultation. 180 Cfr. Secretary of State in the Offices of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, folios 8030 to 8031). Defense Committee of the Triunfeña Lands (CODETT), “The Historic Community of Triunfo de la Cruz founded on May 3, 1524 – location of the historic Triunfo de la Cruz Mountain” (evidence file, folios 2212 to 2214). 181 Statement offered before the Inter-American by José Ángel Castro, during the public hearing held on May 20, 2014, and statement offered before the Inter-American Court by Clara Eugenia Flores, during the public hearing held on May 20, 2014. 182 Cfr. Document “Case of the Punta Izopo resort”, annex to the Brief of Pleadings and Motions (evidence file, folio 7600). 183