family and community relationships,370 and on the individual life projects and the collective development project.371 321. The State indicated that the representatives’ arguments regarding non-pecuniary damage are, in several respects, “absolutely invalid in the cultural context of a Quichua indigenous people in Amazonia because they relate to isolated aspects, and this contradicts the ethos of the Sarayaku indigenous worldview.” Regarding the alleged threats to the People’s livelihood and cultural identity owing to the damage to the territory and other alleged facts, the State added that in the “imagery of the Amazonian Quichua, the social, communal and environmental order with nature is revitalized through a process of symbolic hierarchical re-assignment that does not involve State intervention and, on the contrary, corresponds to the cultural agents of each village.” As to the allegation that the community was deprived of education, health care, communal relations and collective development projects, the State indicated “that the ecological and social conditions in Sarayaku are not seriously at risk because there is a significant flow of tourists each month and community-based tourism has become a development alternative, or eco-development.” Finally, the State asserted that it had invested more than half a million dollars in Sarayaku since 2004, including a project entitled “Preparation of the Life Plan of the Sarayaku Community,” and that “all this investment is the result of the oil revenues, from which Sarayaku is one of the indigenous communities that has benefited the most.” Consequently, it “considers that there have been no real changes in the life project of its inhabitants” and that their claim “exceeds the scope of any potential or collateral damage caused by lack of protection from the State apparatus.” b) Considerations of the Court 322. When declaring the violations of the rights to communal property and consultation, the Court took into account the serious impacts suffered by the People owing to their profound social and spiritual relationship with their territory and, in particular, the destruction of part of the forest and certain places of great symbolic value. 323. Bearing in mind the compensation ordered by the Court in other cases, and based on the circumstances of this case, the suffering caused to the People and to their cultural identity, the impact on their territory, particularly due to the presence of explosives, as well as the changes caused in their living conditions and way of life and the other non-pecuniary damage they suffered the youngest children were left at home and the young people joined the Peace and Life Camps to protect their territory.” They also mentioned that “many of the leaders of the Sarayaku People had to abandon their studies at the University of Sarayaku, created by a cooperation project between Ecuadorian universities and a Spanish university, because they had to defend the territory. Consequently, they were unable to obtain their university degree.” 369 On this point, the representatives indicated that: (a) as a result of food shortages during and after the “state of emergency” to defend the territory of Sarayaku, “its members suffered various illnesses such as malnutrition, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, headaches, an increase in gastritis and anemia, hepatitis B and other illnesses”; (b) the conflict seriously disrupted the security, tranquility and way of life of members of the People, who feel that [at any time] anything can happen to them and [that] all the threats could be real”; (c) the children have lived in fear of the militarization of the territory and for the fate of their parents and, as a result of the suspension of classes, did not return to their studies; (d) the effects of the threats, harassment and physical abuse to which they were subjected still continue to this day as “Sarayaku members continue to fear for the future of their territory”; (e) “as a result of the State’s actions, the Sarayaku People have been stigmatized as a 'guerilla' people and as ‘a real state within a State,’ with ties to subversive activities, which has affected their relations with much of Ecuadorian society. 370 The representatives argued that, on this point: (a) “tension has been constant with neighboring communities, especially with the Canelos community, with which it is still working to improve relations”; (b) “the conflict raised tensions among the Sarayaku families themselves, because of disputes over allowing the oil company to enter and owing to the lack of time to devote to family life,” and (c) the divisions caused by the company led to the expulsion and punishment of some members of Sarayaku, [and also to] quarrelling and distrust.” In this regard, they indicated that the consequences “of these conflicts continue to have an impact, as revealed by the situation created by the attempted secession of the territory and creation of the community of Kutukachi.” 371 In particular, they argued that: (a) it affected the life project of many members of the community, who were forced to leave their previous occupations to devote themselves entirely to the defense of their territory, and (b) the community’s development projects, such as the fish farming project, and those relating to communal economy, land conservation, community tourism, and the Sarayaku university were “delayed, hindered or thwarted.” 87