ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 90. With regards to the Kuraz, the Complainants submitted that, contrary to the Respondent State's allegations of having conducted the necessary preparations and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study, no study at all of the impact of the Kuraz on the Lower Omo peoples was carried out "before the commencement" of the Project; and that if such a study existed at all, the Respondent State chose not to release it to the public. 91. The Complainants submitted that even the original EIA of Gibe III was produced only after work had already started on the construction of the dam, but was confined to the middle basin of the Omo and ignored altogether the Lower Omo and the Complainants. And that it was only until 2008, after two years into the project, that the EIA was revised to include selected findings and recommendations from an "Additional Study" of downstream impacts and renamed the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (the "ESIA"). 92. Based on this, the Complainants submitted that the EISA appeared to have been compiled without the involvement of any of the Peoples of the Lower Omo contrary to international guidelines and case law, which both show that the participation of indigenous peoples is an essential component of an effective impact assessment. 28 93. The Complainants took issue with the ESIA's proposal to release" controlled flood" from the dam reservoir annually to mitigate the dam's impact on downstream communities, over a period of 10 days in late August or early September. The Complainants submitted that the proposal to replicate the natural flood of the Omo was not sufficient to compensate the communities for all ad verse effects of the dam or avoid the' severe damages [sic] to downstream communities' for the following reasons: (a) Any benefit that the controlled floods might confer on the Complainants would be dependent on the Respondent State's determination; and (b) The decision whether to allow a controlled flood, when and for how long, rests alone with the Respondent State, which the latter mayor may not grant if the flood reaches a level sufficient to benefit downstream communities would also Citing the Akwe: Kon Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Geneva, 2004) Decision VU!16 F COP-7 UN Doc. UNEP ~§ 1 (13 April 2004»; and Saramaka People v Suriname Interpretation of the Judgment of Preli 'foft1E.'Q)?~i ~ " Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series e No. 185 para 41, ~~;~~H else 010 Pueblo lndigena Kichwa de Sarayaku v Ecuador, Fondo y reparaciones, Judgment of27 ~ 20 S~ries o. <~ 245 paras 212-20 [Spanish Only). .: 28 0()' 19