64 1.1, is violated when the State fails to carry out or supervise environmental and social impact 231 assessments prior to granting the concessions. The Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Saramaka case establishes that social and environmental impact assessments must be carried out prior to the 232 approval of the respective plans, and requires states to allow indigenous peoples to participate in the 233 conduction of prior environmental and social impact assessments . In general terms, ESIAs “must 234 respect the [corresponding] people’s traditions and culture” and the results must be shared with the indigenous communities so that they can make an informed decision. The right of access to information in relation to the development or investment plans or projects 221. For the IACHR, the right of access to information protected by Article 13 of the American Convention “comprises the positive obligation of the State to provide its citizens with access to the information in its possession, and the corresponding right of individuals to access the information held by 235 the State.” 222. The right of access to information cannot be reduced to the duty of turning over information requested by a particular person. The right also includes the obligation to make public 236 administration transparent and to provide, ex officio, the information needed by the public (the general …continuación ownership” [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. 254]. Consequently, as stated by the inter-American Court in its Saramaka judgment, “the purpose of ESIAs is not only to have some objective measure of such possible impact on the land and the people, but also (…) to ‘ensure that members of the Saramaka people are aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, in order that the proposed development or investment plan is accepted knowingly and voluntarily’.” [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. 40] 231 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. 154. 232 As explained by the Court, “ESIAs must be completed prior to the granting of the concession, as one of the objectives for requiring such studies is to guarantee the [corresponding people’s] right to be informed about all the proposed projects in their territory. Hence, the State’s obligation to supervise the ESIAs coincides with its duty to guarantee the effective participation of the [respective] people in the process of granting concessions.” [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. 41] 233 Corte IDH, Caso Pueblo Saramaka, supra nota 42, párr. 133 (el Estado tiene el deber de “asegurarse que los miembros del pueblo Saramaka tengan conocimiento de los posibles riesgos, incluidos los riesgos ambientales y de salubridad, a fin de que acepten el plan de desarrollo o inversión propuesto con conocimiento y de forma voluntaria”). Cf. Corte IDH, Caso 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. 16. 234 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. 41. 235 IACHR, Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 2008. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134. Doc. 5. 25 February, 2009. Chapter III. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2008eng/Annual%20Report%202008%20RELE%20-%20version%20final.pdf. Likewise, Article 4 of the IACHR’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (2000) establishes that “Access to information (…) is a fundamental right of every individual,” and also that “States have the obligation to guarantee the full exercise of this right.” See also IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Estudio Especial sobre el Derecho de Acceso a la Información. August, 2007. IACHR, Annual Reporto f the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 2005. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 7. 27 February, 2006. Chapter IV. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=662&IID=1. 236 I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151. Para. 77. In this respect, the UN, OSCE and OAS Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, in their Joint Declaration, established that “Public authorities should be required to publish pro-actively, even in the absence of a request, a range of information of public interest” (Joint Declaration on Access of Information and Secrecy Legislation, December 6, 2004, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=319&IID=1), which is particularly relevant when the information is necessary for the exercise of other fundamental rights. The scope of this obligation is also spelled out by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in its Resolution CJI/RES.147(LXXIII-O/08) on “Principles on the Right of Access to Information,” Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 7, 2008, available at: http://www.oas.org/cji/eng/CJI-RES_147_LXXIII-O-08_eng.pdf, in which it is established that “Public bodies should disseminate information about their functions and activities – including, but not limited to, their Continúa…