41 the appropriate measures to ensure the continuance of the relationship of the indigenous people with their land or their culture.”225 (i)(c)(1) Effective participation and consent 125. The third guarantee established by the Court contains three separate but related obligations. According to the Court, Article 1(1) of the American Convention requires that, in order to guarantee that restrictions to the property rights of the members of the indigenous or tribal peoples by the issuance of concessions or authorization or projects within their territory does not amount to a denial of their survival as a people, States must comply with the following three safeguards: First, the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the [people concerned], in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan […] within the [ancestral] territory. Second, the State must guarantee that the [members of the people concerned] will receive a reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory. Thirdly, the State must ensure that no concession will be issued within [the ancestral] territory unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a prior environmental and social impact assessment.226 126. As explained by the Court, these safeguards “are intended to preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that the members of the [indigenous people] have with their territory, which in turn ensures their survival as a tribal people.”227 The three obligations are complementary in their aim to guarantee the survival of the indigenous or tribal people.228 127. With respect to the effective participation requirement, the organs of the interAmerican system have specifically established that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to “be involved in the processes of design, implementation, and evaluation of development projects carried out on their lands and ancestral territories.”229 Moreover, the State must guarantee that “indigenous peoples be consulted on any matters that might affect them,”230 and “the purpose of 225 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 29. 226 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 129. 227 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 129. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245. para. 157. 228 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 38. 229 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 157. 230 IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 157.