PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 87 the Espoo Convention, Article 13 of the 2001 International Law Commission draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, and Principles 7 and 8 of the UNEP Goals and Principles. Uruguay considers that the provisions invoked by Argentina cannot serve as a legal basis for an obligation to consult the affected populations and adds that in any event the affected populations had indeed been consulted. 216. The Court is of the view that no legal obligation to consult the affected populations arises for the Parties from the instruments invoked by Argentina. 217. Regarding the facts, the Court notes that both before and after the granting of the initial environmental authorization, Uruguay did undertake activities aimed at consulting the affected populations, both on the Argentine and the Uruguayan sides of the river. These activities included meetings on 2 December 2003 in Río Negro, and on 26 May 2004 in Fray Bentos, with participation of Argentine non-governmental organizations. In addition, on 21 December 2004, a public hearing was convened in Fray Bentos which, according to Uruguay, addressed among other subjects, the “handling of chemical products in the plant and in the port ; the appearance of acid rain, dioxins, furans and other polychlorates of high toxicity that could affect the environment ; compliance with the Stockholm Convention ; atmospheric emissions of the plant ; electromagnetic and electrostatic emissions ; [and] liquid discharges into the river”. Inhabitants of Fray Bentos and nearby regions of Uruguay and Argentina participated in the meeting and submitted 138 documents containing questions or concerns. 218. Further, the Court notes that between June and November 2005 more than 80 interviews were conducted by the Consensus Building Institute, a non-profit organization specializing in facilitated dialogues, mediation, and negotiation, contracted by the IFC. Such interviews were conducted inter alia in Fray Bentos, Gualeguaychú, Montevideo, and Buenos Aires, with interviewees including civil society groups, non-governmental organizations, business associations, public officials, tourism operators, local business owners, fishermen, farmers and plantation owners on both sides of the river. In December 2005, the draft CIS and the report prepared by the Consensus Building Institute were released, and the IFC opened a period of consultation to receive additional feedback from stakeholders in Argentina and Uruguay. 219. In the light of the above, the Court finds that consultation by Uruguay of the affected populations did indeed take place. 77