Human Right.s our Collective Responsibility 145. The Respondent State submitted that it was incorrect for the Complainants to allege that the impact assessment study of the Gibe III does not include the downstream areas of the dam. This is because page 226 of the Environment and Social Impact Assessment of Gibe III provides a summary of the impact of the project downstream and refers to the detailed study over the downstream effects of the dam. 146. The Respondent State also submitted that the Complainants' claims that the impact assessment study was not transparent and failed to include a participatory process is baseless because the study was conducted under internationally accepted guidelines and treaties ratified by Ethiopia. 147. With regards to public consultation and the right of the people to be consulted on the development projects in their area, the Respondent State submitted that several consultations were held in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment Guideline prepared by the Environment Protection Authority of Ethiopia which requires the participation of interested and affected parties. The Respondent State submitted that the guideline was followed to the letter in the course of conducting the environmental impact assessment of Gibe III. 148. The Respondent State denied that the public consuhation sessions that were held with both the upstream and downstream communities were platforms for governmental imposition. Rather the Respondent State submitted that the consultations it held with the affected Omo communities were nothing but a genuine effort by the EEPCO to provide an honest overview of the construction and to receive questions and concerns. 149. The Respondent State submitted that the consultations, done in the languages of the seven peoples, were held with the sole purpose of transparency, showing the advantages that come with the dam, and to gather the opinion and concerns of the impacted communities to allow the government to mitigate the short- and long-term impact of the dam. 150. The Respondent State also submitted that there is simply no evidential support for the Complainants' assertion that the Gibe III will deprive the peoples of the Lower Omo access to the Omo River for their livestock or lead to a loss of vegetation cover.