Court notes the relevance of due interpretation of the laws and application of control of conventionality, in light of the Court’s case law and the applicable international standards, to ensure indigenous and tribal communal property rights. D. Obligation to ensure the right to consultation and cultural identity D.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 212. The representatives argued that the Caxina S.A. corporation had been conducting activities aimed at non-metallic mining extraction in a concession area that included ancestral lands titled to the Punta Piedra and Cusuna communities. In this regard, they added that the activities had been carried out with the State’s authorization but without conducting a process of prior, free and informed consultation of the community. They also indicated that the mining company had carried out exploration activities without an environmental impact assessment having been made. 213. The Commission noted with concern that, on December 4, 2014, the Caxina Mining Corporation had received mining exploration rights in an area that included part of the traditional territory of the Punta Piedra community. In addition, it mentioned that the said mining exploitation authorization, which was already registered before the Institute of Geology and Mines of Honduras, had been granted without any kind of consultation with the community. Therefore, the Commission considered that this situation revealed the State’s continuing acts and omissions that adversely affected the communal property of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community. 214. Meanwhile, the State argued that the supposed mining concession was at the stage of exploration and gathering information to verify the project’s feasibility. In this regard, the company’s exploration activities had led to the conclusion that the ore body that it eventually intended to extract covered 4.9 hectares, and was located 1.25 kilometers from the Punta Piedra community. The State also indicated that, according to articles 11, 29, 50 and 51 of the General Mining Law, and article 82 of the Regulations to this Law, if the current exploration process were converted into an exploitation stage, an environmental impact assessment would be made and the inhabitants affected would be consulted in a prior, free and informed manner. Also, during the on-site procedure, the State repeated that, according to its domestic legislation, no consultation was required at the exploration phase; rather, this was only necessary at the exploitation phase. 235 D.2 Considerations of the Court 215. The Court has established that the State must comply with the following safeguards in relation to any plans for development, investment, exploration or extraction in traditional territories of indigenous or tribal communities: (i) conduct an adequate and participative process that guarantees the right to consultation; (ii) make a prior environmental and social impact assessment, and (iii) if applicable, transfer a reasonable share of the benefits produced by the exploitation of the natural resources. 236 235 Cf. Video containing images filmed by the State during the on-site procedure conducted on August 25, 2015 (merits file, folio 1127). 236 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 129, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 157 and 177. 62