Human Rights our Collective Responsibility respect to policies and projects affecting their community.w The full disclosure of all information on the impact of the dam and the Kuraz project was essential for the peoples to exercise their freedom to choose or their free, prior and informed consent. The Commission notes that the Respondent State held public consultations with the affected communities between 2006 and 2014, and that public disclosure was made during those consultations and on the web. However, there is no scintilla of proof to show that there was ever such a disclosure of the environmental and social impact assessment of the Kuraz Sugar Project to the people, the public or on the project websiteP 249. Having ruled that the evidence before the Commission does not sufficiently support the Complainants' allegation that the Omo peoples have not been adequately consulted, the Commission also finds that the evidence in support of Complainants' case does not establish that the Respondent State had violated the Omo peoples' right to development in respect of the Gibe III dam. The Commission finds that the Respondent State made reasonable public disclosure on the impact of the dam through the national and local consultations held with the people and on the project's website. However, with respect to the Kuraz project, the Commission finds that there was no public disclosure of the impact of the project on the peoples' rights, livelihoods and way of life. The absence of such critical information was fundamental to the peoples' exercise of their free, prior and informed consent to any development project affecting them. 250. In the circumstances and for the avoidance of doubt, the Commission makes two findings on this issue. First, that in respect of the Gibe III dam, the Commission finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 22(1) of the African Charter. Second, for the failure to undertake an ESIA or publicly disclose the report of the ESIA in respect of the Kuraz Sugar Project, the Commission finds that the Respondent has violated Article 22(1) of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Articles 24 of the Charter 251. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State violated Article 24 of the African Charter because the Respondent State failed to conduct a proper study of the environmental impact for both Projects to identify the risks the projects pose to public health. An Orqan of tne AfriqanU).;'·')) Union ~,,,"., 55