an activity having the potential adversely to affect the environment of another State. If that is the case, the State concerned must conduct an environmental impact assessment.” 83 140. This interpretation regarding the moment at which the environmental impact assessment should be made is in keeping with the guidelines approved by the UNEP Governing Council in its decision 14/25 “Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment,” according to which: “Principle 1 States (including their competent authorities) should not undertake or authorize activities without prior consideration, at an early stage, of their environmental effects. Where the extent, nature or location of a proposed activity is such that it is likely to significantly affect the environment, a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) should be undertaken in accordance with the following principles.” 84 141. Similarly, at the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, it was asserted that: “[t]o be most effective, the environmental impact assessment should be carried out at the design stage of a project to identify where practical plans can be made to minimize any adverse effects.” 85 142. Secondly, as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has indicated, environmental impact assessment must be made by “independent and technically capable entities, under the State’s supervision,” 86 in order to ensure an objective, impartial and technically verifiable assessment 87 and also so that the State can verify that the assessment meets the requirements established in the applicable norms. 143. Regarding the specific content of an environmental impact assessment, in the case of the Saramaka People, the Inter-American Court Human Rights specified that such assessments “should be carried out in accordance with the relevant international standards and best practice.”88 This means that environmental impact assessments should include: (i) Potential national and transboundary impacts of the respective project; 83 Ibid, p. 57, para. 153 (bold added). 84 UNEP, Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment, Decision14/25, June 1, 1987 85 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Fourth Meeting, Bratislava, 4 to 15 M a y 1998, “Impact assessment and minimizing adverse effects: implementation of Article 14,” UNEP/CBD/COP/4/20, 11 March 1998, p.2. 86 ICourtHR, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, p. 29. 87 IACHR, Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and natural resources. Norms and jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 56/09 (December 30, 2009), para 252. Decision No. 004 of August 8, 2005, Colombian Departmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Board (Jundepesca). 88 ICourtHR, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 185, Para. 41. 60