209. In this case, the Court finds that, according to the body of evidence, there is no indication that the alleged “understanding” reached by the CGC included the presentation of the information contained in the environmental impact assessment, or that it allowed the Sarayaku People to play an active role in an adequate discussion process. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the alleged “socialization” of the assessment was related to a consultation process with the Sarayaku People, or that it had served as a basis for informing them of the advantages and disadvantages of the project in relation to their culture and way of life, in the context of a dialogue process aimed at reaching an agreement. Consequently, the Court considers that the company’s actions did not form part of an informed consultation. 210. In this regard, there is evidence to conclude that the irregularities noted in the consultation process that the State was obliged to undertake, together with the numerous measures taken by the company to divide the communities, fostered confrontations between the communities of the Bobonaza and affected their inter-community relations. Thus, when expanding the provisional measures in June 2005, the Court considered it “particularly necessary that the measures to be adopt[ed should] include actions that promote a climate of respect for the human rights of the beneficiaries […] in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Convention as regards relations between individuals.” For the same reason, the Court required the State, when implementing the measures, to inform “the neighboring indigenous communities about the meaning and scope of the provisional measures, for both the State itself and private third parties, in order to foster a climate of peaceful coexistence between them.” * 211. In conclusion, the Court has verified that the State did not conduct an appropriate and effective process that would guarantee the right to consultation of the Sarayaku People before undertaking or authorizing the program of exploration or exploitation of resources on their territory. As analyzed by the Court, the oil company’s actions have not complied with the minimum requirements of a prior consultation. In short, the Sarayaku People were not consulted by the State before the company carried out oil exploration activities, planted explosives or adversely affected sites of special cultural value. All this was acknowledged by the State and, in any case, has been verified by the Court from the evidence submitted. B.6 The rights to consultation and to communal property in relation to the right to cultural identity disadvantages of the project for the community and its members; to be heard in relation to any concerns and claims it presents in relation to the defense of its interests, and to express its opinion on the viability of the project” (judgment SU039/97). In addition, see judgment C-030/08. See also, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Case of Intag (459-2003-RA), Case of Nangaritza (0334-2003-RA) and Case of Yuma (0544-06-RA). 277 Peru: Law on the right to prior consultation of indigenous or original peoples recognized in ILO Convention No. 169, article 4.f: “Absence of coercion or conditions. The participation of the indigenous or original peoples in the consultation process shall be without coercion or conditions”; article 4.7: “Timely information. The indigenous or original peoples have the right to receive from the State institutions all the information necessary to be able to express their duly informed point of view, on the legislative or administrative measure subject to consultation. The State has the obligation to provide this information from the start of the consultation process and with due notice.” Bolivia: Executive Decree No. 29033, February 16, 2007: “The consultation and participation process shall be based on this principle of truthfulness in accordance with the laws in force, especially the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169, which establish that consultation must take place in good faith and, therefore, all the information that is part of and the result of the consultation and participation process must be truthful.” Ecuador: Environmental Management Act, Official Record supplement 418, September 10, 2004, article 29: “Any natural or legal person has the right to be informed in a timely and appropriate manner regarding any activity by the State institutions that, according to the Regulations of this Law, may produce environmental impacts.” Similarly, in Venezuela, the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities of December 8, 2005, stipulates in article 14 that “projects shall be presented no less than ninety days prior to their consideration by the respective indigenous peoples and communities, gathered in Assembly. These shall contain all the necessary information regarding their nature, objectives and scope, as well as the benefits to be obtained by the indigenous peoples and communities involved and the possible environmental, social, cultural or any other damage and the terms of reparation, so that they can be previously assessed and analyzed by the respective people or community […].” Also, see Nicaragua: article 3 of Law 445 of January 23, 2003, and Colombia: Decree 1397 of 1996, articles 8 and 16. 60