122. As confirmed in a note of September 16, 2010, which containing the record of the approval of the “Comprehensive Environmental Assessment” of Block 23 by the Under-Secretary for Environmental Quality, the CGC representative was required: “(a) to submit a schedule and specific time frames for executing the activities contained in the Plan of Action, including those referring to information on how the pentolite was managed, the current condition of this explosive, and the environmental impact of the search for and evaluation of the buried material.”144 123. On November 19, 2010, in a public instrument, PETROECUADOR and the CGC signed a Deed of Termination by mutual agreement of the partnership contract for the exploration and exploitation of crude oil in Block 23.145 The representatives indicated that, despite having expressly requested it, the Sarayaku People were not informed of the terms of the negotiation between the State and the CGC, or of the conditions under which the Act was signed.146 According to the terms of the said Act, in clause 8(4), the parties (PETROECUADOR and CGC) “agree and ratify that there is no environmental liability” in the concession area that can be attributed to the contractor.147 VIII MERITS VIII.1 RIGHTS TO CONSULTATION AND TO INDIGENOUS COMMUNAL PROPERTY 124. In this case, it must be determined whether the State adequately respected and guaranteed the rights of the Sarayaku People that were allegedly violated, by granting a contract for oil exploration and exploitation on their territory to a private company; by implementing this contract and by the occurrence of a series of related events. Even though the State acknowledged that it had failed to conduct prior consultations in this case, during the litigation, it questioned its obligation to do so and argued that certain actions taken by the company satisfied the requirement to consult the indigenous communities of the area granted in concession. Unlike other cases heard by this Court, 148 information provided by the community and that the second phase, namely, the removal of the material buried underground, remained pending, due to disagreements with community members over the method to be used. However, the State maintained that the material underground did not pose a danger to the community, given the depth at which the explosives are buried. Finally, the State indicated that it did not have definite information regarding the amount of explosives that might be on the territory in question. Cf. Matter of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku with regard to Ecuador. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 4, 2010, Considering paragraph 8. Available at: http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/sarayaku_se_04.doc 144 Act of Termination by mutual agreement of the partnership contract for the exploration of hydrocarbons and exploitation of crude oil in Block 23, Annex XV, No. MAE-SCA-2010-3855 of September 16, 2010 (evidence file, tome 17, folio 9595). 145 Act of Termination by mutual agreement of the partnership contract for the exploration of hydrocarbons and exploitation of crude oil in Block 23, of November 19, 2010 (evidence file, tome 17, folios 9389 and ff.). 146 Cf. On July 30, 2010, the Secretary for Hydrocarbons of the Ministry of Non-Renewable Natural Resources, sent the Sarayaku Note No. 24-SH-2010 109964 (evidence file, tome 10, folio 6451) requesting “a certified copy of the technical and legal file of the Sarayaku proceedings in relation to the operations in Block 23 and on their territory before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, both printed and electronic documents.” Regarding this note, on August 4, 2010, the Sarayaku asked the Secretary for Hydrocarbons for a certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding without receiving any reply. (evidence file, tome 10, folio 6451) 147 Act of Termination by mutual agreement of the partnership contract for the exploration of hydrocarbons and exploitation of crude oil in Block 23, of November 19, 2010, folio 9412. 148 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146; Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214. 31