48 173. It is important to point out that, even if the State would have proven that the previously stated socialization or information workshops (supra para. 93) were in fact carried out with the presence of the Community’s legitimate representatives, this Court recalls that the mere socialization with the Community or providing information to it does not necessarily comply with the minimum elements of an adequate prior consultation, given it does not constitute a genuine dialogue as part of a participative process with the aim of reaching an agreement. (iii) The expansion of the urban area and the sale of lands 174. Regarding the expansion of the urban area, the presumed victim Ángel Castro stated in the public hearing that there was “a municipalization in the case of the Garífuna territory,” which “[w]as carried out without consultation, the municipality did it without consultation and took over a great part of our lands” and that “the extension of the urban area was not even socialized with the Community.”184 175. The Court verified that the mentioned expansion of the urban area took place, among others, in the properties designated “Plot A1” (infra Map Annex), recognized as traditional lands of the Community by the State. However, said expansion was ordered through resolution N° 055-89 issued by the INA in the year 1989 (supra para. 73), therefore this administrative measure was adopted prior to the existence of the State of Honduras’ international obligation to consult the Community. Thus, the alleged absence of a consultation process regarding said expansion does not constitute, in itself, a violation to the Community’s right to consultation. (iv) The approval of the Law on Property in the year 2004 176. The Court warns that it will not issue judgment regarding the representatives’ argument of the lack of consultation of the Law on Property and the alleged “information process”, given that sufficient arguments or evidence was not presented in this sense. B.5.3. The realization of an environmental impact study 177. The report prepared within the framework of the “National Sustainable Tourism Program” of the Inter-American Development Bank states that “[t]he (H0-0195) program has not generated legal studies on the possible negative impacts this program could have on ethnic communities in general, and on Garífuna communities located within the radius of the program specifically” and that “a study detailing the local situation of the territorial and coastal rights of these communities” would be required “to protect them, along with an analysis of the sociocultural impacts of the tourism program.”185 178. Regarding the “Marbella” project, it was indicated that terms of reference would be prepared to carry out an environmental impact study,186 but they were not presented nor was the environmental impact study provided, reason for which it was not proven that said study was in fact carried out nor were its conclusions handed over. Statement offered before the Inter-American Court by José Ángel Castro, during the public hearing held on May 20, 2014. 184 Inter-American Development Bank, National Sustainable Tourism Program (HO-0195), “Analysis of Sociocultural Impacts of the National Sustainable Tourism Program between the Garífuna Communities of Tela Bay”, of July 2006 (evidence file, folio 6105). 185 Cfr. Secretary of State in the Office of the Environment, Technical report No. 186/95, of August 25, 1995 (evidence file, folios 2620 to 2623). 186