169. In the instant case, the State signed a partnership contract with the CGC on July 26, 1996, for exploration and exploitation of crude oil in block 23, which is part of Sarayaku territory. 170. According to expert witness Acosta Espinoza, before the entry into force of the 1998 Constitution and ILO Convention No. 169 in Ecuador, conflicts between indigenous territoriality and oil interests were resolved by simply imposing the will of the State, without the State conducting a formal expropriation procedure; thus, in practice, territories were occupied, populations were displaced, and this even led to the disappearance of indigenous communities.222 171. The effective protection of indigenous communal property, in the terms of Article 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, imposes on States the positive obligation to adopt special measures to ensure that members of indigenous and tribal peoples enjoy the full and equal exercise of their right to the lands that they have traditionally used and occupied. Thus, in keeping with Article 29(b) of the Convention, the provisions of Article 21 of this instrument must be interpreted in conjunction with other rights recognized by the State in its domestic laws or in other relevant international norms.223 Under international law, indigenous people cannot be denied the right to enjoy their own culture, which consists of way of life strongly associated with the land and the use of its natural resources.224 172. Although the State had an obligation to guarantee the Sarayaku People their right to the effective enjoyment of their property, in accordance with their communal tradition and taking into adopted; its Articles 28 and 29 provide that “[e]very natural or legal person is entitled to participate in environmental management through mechanisms established by the Regulations, which include consultations, public hearings, initiatives, proposals or any type of association between the public and private sectors. A public interest action may be filed to denounce those who violate this guarantee, without prejudice to civil and criminal responsibility based on complaints or accusations of reckless or malicious behavior. […] The failure to comply with the consultation process referred to […] in the Constitution of the Republic will signify that the activity in question cannot be implemented and shall be grounds for the annulment of the respective contracts. […] Any natural or legal person is entitled to timely and adequately information on any activity of State institutions under the Regulations of this Act that may cause environmental impacts. To this end this, requests may be made and actions filed, either individually or collectively, with the relevant authorities.” On January 29, 2009, the Mining Act was adopted (published in the supplement to Official Record 517 of January 29, 2009), its Articles 87, 89 and 90 establish that “[t]he State is responsible for implementing executing the participation and social consultation processes through the corresponding public institutions according to constitutional principles and regulations. This responsibility cannot be delegated to a private entity. The purpose of these processes shall be to promote the sustainable development of mining activities, as protecting the rational exploitation of mineral resources, respect for the environment, and social participation in environmental and development matters in the areas of influence of a mining project. […] This process shall be conducted at all stages of the mining activity within the framework of the procedures and mechanisms established in the Constitution and the law. […] The public participation or consultation processes must establish a special procedure for the communities, peoples and nationalities, based on the principle of legitimacy and representativeness, through their institutions, in those cases in which the mining exploration or exploitation is conducted on their ancestral lands and territories when such work may affect their interests.” On April 20, 2010, the Public Participation Act was adopted (supplement to Official Register No 175), which states that “[t]he collective right to free, prior and informed consent within a reasonable time is guaranteed and recognized to all indigenous communes, communities, towns and nationalities, Afro-Ecuadorian and Montubio peoples. In the case of prior consultation on plans and programs for the exploration, exploitation and marketing of non-renewable resources that are on their territories and lands, the indigenous communes, communities, peoples and nationalities, and AfroEcuadorian and Montubio people, through their legitimate authorities, shall participate in the benefits that these projects will produce and shall receive compensation for eventual negative social, cultural, and environmental harm. The consultation to be conducted by competent authorities is mandatory and must be prompt. If the consent of the collective subject is not obtained, the provisions of the Constitution and the law shall apply.” 222 Cf. Pleadings and motions brief, tome 1, folios 268 to 272. See also expert opinion provided by affidavit by Alberto José Acosta Espinoza, economist, of June 30, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10072 to 10077) 223 For example, Ecuador had ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Thus, under Article 1 common to both agreements, indigenous peoples may “pursue their economic, social and cultural development” and “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources” so that they are not “deprived of their own means of subsistence.” Similarly, see Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 93 to 95. See also Interpretation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, para. 37, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, paras. 113 to 115 (supporting an interpretation of international human rights instruments that takes into consideration the progressive development of the corpus juris of international human rights over time and its current status). 224 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 91, 92, 94 and 95. See also Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 149. 47