mechanisms or procedures in place to implement effectively the framework established in the new Constitution, the National Human Rights Plan and in ILO Convention No. 169. 141. The representatives agreed essentially with the Commission’s observations regarding the violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 142. The State, for its part, considered that it had not violated Article 2 of the Convention and stressed that the laws, regulations and other regulatory mechanisms are being harmonized with the Constitution, and that international human rights instruments have been incorporated into all substantive and procedural reforms. A.5 Obligation to Respect Rights 143. The representatives and the Commission indicated that the State is responsible for the above-mentioned alleged violations, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 144. The State argued that it had not violated Article 1(1) of the Convention. In particular, it argued that, regarding the prevention of human rights violations, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had been created specifically to bring the citizens and the State closer together under a system that respects rights and guarantees. It also indicated, “[r]egarding the investigation of crimes and violence that can violate human rights, the Prosecutor General's Office had developed a system called Indigenous Prosecutors,” who, by knowing Kichwa and Spanish and other languages recognized in the Constitution, “greatly facilitate the gathering of evidence and the investigation of alleged offenses.” The State also noted that, in the neighboring communities to Sarayaku, and within the community itself, the indigenous prosecutors have played an important role “when they have not been obstructed by the residents.” Lastly, it indicated that the representatives had not proved exhaustively that the State violated general obligations of an erga omnes nature. B. The obligation to guarantee the right to consultation in relation to the rights to indigenous communal property and cultural identity of the Sarayaku People B.1 The right to communal indigenous property 145. Article 21 of the American Convention protects the close relationship between indigenous peoples and their lands, and with the natural resources on their ancestral territories and the intangible elements arising from these.156 The indigenous peoples have a community-based tradition related to a form of communal collective land ownership; thus, land is not owned by individuals but by the group and their community.157 These notions of land ownership and possession do not necessarily conform to the classic concept of property, but deserve equal protection under Article 21 of the American Convention. Ignoring the specific forms of the right to the use and enjoyment of property based on the culture, practices, customs and beliefs of each people, would be tantamount to maintaining that there is only one way to use and dispose of property, which, in turn, would render protection under Article 21 of the Convention illusory for millions of people.158 146. Given this intrinsic connection that indigenous and tribal peoples have with their territory, the protection of property rights and the use and enjoyment thereof is necessary to ensure their 156 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 148, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 85. Also, Inter-American Commission, Follow-up Report – Access to justice and Social Inclusion: The road towards strengthening democracy in Bolivia Doc. OAS/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 156. 157 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 140, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay paras. 85 to 87. 158 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 120, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 87. 36