60 Second requirement: not affecting the survival of the respective people 214. The State granting the concession may not affect the survival of the corresponding indigenous or tribal people, in accordance with its ancestral ways of life. In the Inter-American Court’s terms: “another crucial factor to be considered is whether the restriction amounts to a denial of their 208 traditions and customs in a way that endangers the very survival of the group and of its members.” . The notion of “survival” is not tantamount to mere physical subsistence: “The Court emphasized that the phrase ‘survival as a tribal people’ must be understood as the ability of the [indigenous] to ‘preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that [they] have with their territory’, so that ‘they may continue living their traditional way of life, and that their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected […]’. That is, the term 209 ‘survival’ in this context signifies much more than physical survival.” In similar terms, for the IACHR, “the term ‘survival’ (…) does not refer only to the obligation of the State to ensure the right to life of the victims, but rather to take all the appropriate measures to ensure the continuance of the relationship of 210 the [indigenous] people with their land and their culture” . Third requirement: participation, impact assessments, and access to the benefits of the project 215. The third element of the test is composed of three mandatory elements. According to the Court, “in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in order to guarantee that restrictions to the property rights of the members of [indigenous or tribal peoples] by the issuance of concessions within their territory does not amount to a denial of their survival as [an indigenous or] tribal people, the State must abide by the following three safeguards: First, the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the [corresponding] people, in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan (…) within [ancestral] territory. Second, the State must guarantee that the [members of the people] will receive a reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory. Thirdly, the State must ensure that no concession will be issued within [ancestral] territory unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a prior environmental and social impact assessment. These safeguards are intended to preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that the members of the [respective] community have with 211 their territory, which in turn ensures their survival as a tribal people.” These three conditions are 212 complementary requirements, aimed at guaranteeing survival as indigenous or tribal peoples. 216. Participation and prior consultation. Indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to “be involved in the processes of design, implementation, and evaluation of development projects carried out 213 on their lands and ancestral territories” , and the State must “ensure that indigenous peoples be …continuación para. 127, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74. para. 155. Cf., also, Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 137. 207 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. 127. 208 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. 128. 209 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka Vs. Surinam. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 12 de agosto de 2008 Serie C No. 185, párr. 37 [footnotes ommitted]. 210 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka Vs. Surinam. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 12 de agosto de 2008 Serie C No. 185, párr. 29. 211 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. 212 Corte IDH. Caso del Pueblo Saramaka Vs. Surinam. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 12 de agosto de 2008 Serie C No. 185, párr. 38. 213 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. 157.