has affirmed, in certain cases concerning indigenous communities, that the obligation to make prior environmental impact assessments arises from the Pact of San José. 136. In the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, 78 in which the Court examined the issue of logging permits and mining concessions for the exploration and extraction of certain natural resources found on the Saramaka territory, the Court asserted that, as a result of the right to property established in the Pact, the State of Suriname was obliged to ensure: “that no concession was issued within the Saramaka territory at least until independent technically capable entities, under the State’s supervision, had make a prior assessment of their environmental and social impact.” 79 137. This decision was subsequently ratified in the case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. 80 138. According to the findings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the environmental impact assessment must be made before granting the concession for any specific project. Similarly, the International Court of Justice has emphasized that such assessments must be made prior to implementation of a project and that, where necessary, the effects of the project on the environment should be subject to continuous monitoring. In the words of the Court: “The Court also considers that an environmental impact assessment must be conducted prior to the implementation of a project. Moreover, once operations have started and, where necessary, throughout the life of the project, continuous monitoring of its effects on the environment shall be undertaken.”81 139. Also, in its decision of December 16, 2015, in the cases of Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica, the International Court of Justice stressed that: “A State must, before embarking on an activity having the potential adversely to affect the environment of another State, ascertain if there is a risk of significant transboundary harm, which would trigger the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment.” 82 Or, in other words, States must: “ascertain whether there is a risk of significant transboundary harm prior to undertaking 78 ICourtHR, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172. 79 Ibid. p. 29. 80 ICourtHR, Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 204 to 207 81 I.C.J., Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina contra Uruguay), judgment of April 10, 2010, para 205. 82 I.C.J., Cases concerning Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), judgment of December 16, 2015, p. 45, para. 104 [bold added]. 60