66 226. In effect, neither the construction of the international bridge over the Pilcomayo River, nor the public tender and awarding process for the construction of Route 86, nor the adaptation works of Route 54, nor the works of improvement of the provincial road between Santa Victoria Este and La Paz, neither the granting of the oil and gas concession, complied with the minimum standard that requires (a) satisfying the requirements established in Article 21 for cases of expropriation, (b) not threatening the subsistence of the indigenous communities that inhabit Fiscal Lots 14 and 55, (c) being preceded by a prior, free and informed consultation, (d) being preceded by social and environmental impact assessments in accordance with international parameters, or (e) securing the participation of the indigenous communities in the benefits derived from each project. The State did not comply, in any of these cases, with its obligations of allowing and promoting access to the respective public information by 241 the affected indigenous communities . 227. The fact that these indigenous communities did not have a territorial property title formally recognized by the State authorities heightens the international responsibility of the Argentinean State, because –as established by the inter-American system’s jurisprudence-, the safeguards of the right to property under inter-American human rights instruments can be fully enforced by indigenous and tribal peoples in relation to territories that belong to them but which have not yet been formally titled, demarcated or delimitated by the State, and also in relation to territories whose possession they have lost, partially or totally. States violate indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to property when they grant concessions for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources or carry out public works in untitled, 242 undemarcated or unprotected territories. Following this line, the IACHR has established that States are in the obligation of “carry[ing] out the measures to delimit, demarcate and title or otherwise clarify and protect the corresponding lands of the [indigenous] people without detriment to other indigenous communities and, until those measures have been carried out, abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area occupied and used by 243 the [respective] people” . 228. For the above reasons, the IACHR considers that the State of Argentina violated the right to territorial property established in Article 21 of the Convention and the right of access to information established in Article 13, as well as the right to participation established in Article 23, to the detriment of the indigenous communities that form part of the Lhaka Honhat Association, petitioner in the present case. E. Deforestation of the territory by illegal logging 229. The IACHR considers it pertinent to recall, in relation to the issue of deforestation of the ancestal territory, that the indigenous communities who inhabit this area have (a) the right to property of the natural resources present in their territory, and (b) the right to environmental integrity, which create clear obligations of prevention and immediate action on the part of the State authorities, including the duty to control and punish illegal extraction of wood. 230. The Inter-American human rights system’s jurisprudence on indigenous peoples’ right to communal property has explicitly incorporated, within the material scope of the right to property, the natural resources traditionally used by indigenous peoples and linked to their cultures, including uses 241 Copy of letter sent on March 22, 2001 to the Foreign Ministry. Copy of a letter sent on March 22, 2001 to the Government of Salta. Copy of the response letter from the Foreign Ministry dated March 27, 2001. Annex to a communication sent by the petitioners on July 19, 2001. 242 CIDH, Application to the Inter- American Court on the case Pueblo Kichwa of Sarayaku y sus miembros vs. Ecuador, 26 de abril de 2010, parr 125. CIDH Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, parr. 142 y 143. 243 CIDH, Informe No. 40/04, Caso 12.053, Comunidades Indígenas Mayas del Distrito de Toledo v. Belice, 12 de octubre de 2004, párr. 197 – Recomendación 2.