58 violations of individual and collective human rights. For example, they have concluded that the right to life in conditions of dignity is violated whenever development projects cause environmental contamination, generate noxious effects upon basic subsistence activities and affect the health of the indigenous and 192 tribal peoples who live in the territories where they are implemented. They have also held that “adverse effects on health and production systems; changes in domestic migration patterns; a decline in the quantity and quality of water sources; impoverishment of soils for farming; a reduction in fishing, animal life, plant life, and biodiversity in general, and disruption of the balance that forms the basis of ethnic and cultural reproduction”, inter alia, constitute violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples who live 193 in the vicinity of the places where the mining, timber or oil industries develop their projects . 209. The IACHR and Inter-American Court have established that these types of concession, together with the State acts that relate to them, are violations of the right to property protected by the American Convention, and of other human rights and the granting of concessions by States under these circumstances violates Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention. They have also concluded that the environmental damages caused by concessions for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources exacerbate the violations of the right to communal property by the authorities, and give rise to 194 international responsibility. In this regard, the IACHR has reiterated that it “acknowledges the 195 importance of economic development for the prosperity of the populations of this Hemisphere” ; but it also acknowledges that “at the same time, development activities must be accompanied by appropriate and effective measures to ensure that they do not proceed at the expense of the fundamental rights of persons who may be particularly and negatively affected, including indigenous communities and the 196 environment upon which they depend for their physical, cultural and spiritual well-being.” 210. In evaluating the granting of concessions or the implementation of development or investment plans or projects, States must take into account, as a primary consideration, the indigenous communities that inhabit the respective territories, and their traditional modes of land tenure. For the Court, the term “development or investment plan” refers to “any proposed activity that may affect the integrity of the lands and natural resources within the [indigenous] territory, particularly any proposal to 197 grant logging or mining concessions” . In the Court’s opinion, “Article 21 of the Convention does not per se preclude the issuance of concessions for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in indigenous or tribal territories.” For the inter-American Court, “while it is true that all exploration and extraction activity in the [indigenous] territory could affect, to a greater or lesser degree, the use and enjoyment of some natural resource traditionally used for the subsistence of the [indigenous peoples], it is also true that Article 21 of the Convention should not be interpreted in a way that prevents the State from granting any type of concession for the exploration and extraction of natural resources within [indigenous] 198 territory.” In accordance with the above, the American Convention establishes “safeguards and limitations regarding the State’s right to issue concessions that restrict the use and enjoyment of such 199 natural resources” . 192 CIDH, Acceso a la Justicia e Inclusión Social: El camino hacia el fortalecimiento de la Democracia en Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, 28 de junio de 2007, párr. 250. 193 CIDH, Informe de Seguimiento – Acceso a la Justicia e Inclusión Social: El camino hacia el fortalecimiento de la Democracia en Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, 7 de agosto de 2009, párr. 158. 194 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 148. 195 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 150. 196 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 150. 197 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 129, nota al pie No. 127. 198 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 126. 199 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka. Vs. Surinam. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2007. Serie C No. 172, párr. 141.