44 a denial of their right to exist as a people. 166 Thus, the Court has stated that, besides the criteria mentioned, the State must verify that those restrictions or limitations do not imply said denial. 156. Specifically, the Court indicated that, to ensure that the exploration or extraction of natural resources in ancestral territories did not entail a negation of the survival of indigenous people as such, the State must comply with the following safeguards: i) conduct an appropriate and participatory process that guarantees the right to consultation, particularly, among other cases, with regard to development or large-scale investment plans; ii) conduct an environmental impact assessment; and iii) as appropriate, reasonably share the benefits produced by the exploitation of natural resources, as determined by the community itself according to its customs and traditions.167 157. In this case, no specific arguments have been presented regarding the mentioned criteria to determine the validity of the restrictions to the Community’s communal property, but only concerning the alleged failure of the State to comply with some of the mentioned safeguards that must be considered when dealing with restrictions to the right to collective property of indigenous and tribal peoples. Therefore, in this chapter we shall analyze the State’s alleged failure to comply with those safeguards, namely: i) conduct an adequate and participatory process that guarantees the right to consultation, and ii) the execution of an environmental impact assessment. B.5.1. The adequate and participatory process to guarantee the right to consultation 158. The Court has previously stated, in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, that the right to consultation of indigenous and tribal peoples, in addition to being a treaty-based provision, is also a general principle of international law 168 that is based, among others, on the close relationship said communities have with their land and on the respect of their rights to collective property and cultural identity. Said rights must be especially respected in a multicultural, pluralistic, and democratic society. 169 This means that States have an obligation to ensure that indigenous and tribal peoples may participate in the decisions regarding measures that could affect their rights, especially their right to communal property, pursuant to their values, customs, and forms of organization. In this sense, Convention 169 of the ILO acknowledges the aspirations of indigenous and tribal peoples to “exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life, and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages, and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live.”170 Additionally, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Convention 169 of the ILO, “[i]n applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall: a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly.”171 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 128, y Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 156. 166 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 129, y Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 157. 167 168 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 164. 169 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 217. 170 Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Whereas Clause number five. Similarly, paragraph 2 of Article 6 of Convention 169 of the ILO states that: “The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures” and Article 15(2) of this same 171