Judgment on merits and reparations, the same as the beneficiaries of the measures of reparations ordered. In other words, the obligation to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity of the members of the Sarayaku People, initially required in the Orders on provisional measures, are hereafter included in the reparations ordered in this Judgment, which must be complied with from the time that it is notified to the State. Thus, given the special nature of this case, the State’s obligations in the context of the provisional measures are replaced by the measures ordered in this Judgment and, consequently, their establishment and implementation will be subject to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment, and no longer that of the provisional measures.380 Consequently, the said measures are hereby annulled. X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 341. Therefore, THE COURT DECLARES: Unanimously, that: 1. Based on the broad acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, which the Court has assessed positively, the preliminary objection filed has no purpose and it is not appropriate to analyze it, in the terms of paragraph 30 of this Judgment. 2. The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to consultation, to indigenous communal property, and to cultural identity, in the terms of Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, as established in paragraphs 145 to 227, 231 and 232 of this Judgment. 3. The State is responsible for severely jeopardizing the rights to life and to personal integrity, recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to guarantee the right to communal property, in the terms of Articles 1(1) and 21 thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, in accordance with paragraphs 244 to 249 and 265 to 271 of this Judgment. 4. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, in accordance with paragraphs 272 to 278 of this Judgment. 5. It is not appropriate to analyze the facts of this case in light of Articles 7, 13, 22, 23 and 26 of the American Convention, or of Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 228 to 230 and 252 to 254 of this Judgment. 380 Similarly, Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C N. 126, operative paragraph 14. See also relevant decisions in the Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, operative paragraph 15. Also, see Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Provisional measures. Order of the Court of November 26, 2007, considering paragraphs 10 and 11, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of February 2, 2007, considering paragraphs 8 to 21. 91