for the alleged violations are described, there is merely a reference to “the lack of effective participation in relation to the exploitation project within one reserve” (para. 278-c) or to “the lack of mechanisms that ensure effective participation, by a consultation process” (para. 304-d). 22. The foregoing reveals that, on this aspect also, the conclusion reached in the Sarayaku case and transcribed above (supra, para. 13) with regard to the presumed violation of Articles 13 and 23 is also applicable: “the Court considers that, in this case, the facts have been sufficiently analyzed and the violations conceptualized under the rights to communal property, consultation and cultural identity of the Sarayaku People, in the terms of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; accordingly, it will not rule on the alleged violation of those provisions.” 23. Consequently, it is not in order to declare a violation of Article 23 of the Convention, but rather sufficient to declare the violation of Article 21 (Right to Property). IV. 24. Conclusions In conclusion: a) b) It is not in order to declare that Articles 3, 13 and 23 of the American Convention have been violated; It is sufficient to declare the violation of Article 21 (Right to communal property), and the consequent rights to recognition of legal status [personería jurídica] and to consultation and cultural identity, and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention. 25. Alberto Pérez Pérez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 9