A/HRC/22/43 41. Much of this analysis has come from the regional human rights tribunals. For example, the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights has said that Government compliance with the spirit of the rights to health and to a satisfactory environment in the African Charter must include “ordering or at least permitting independent scientific monitoring of threatened environments, requiring and publicising environmental and social impact studies prior to any major industrial development, undertaking appropriate monitoring and providing information to those communities exposed to hazardous materials and activities and providing meaningful opportunities for individuals to be heard and to participate in the development decisions affecting their communities”.28 In a series of cases construing the right to privacy, the European Court of Human Rights has similarly held that States must follow a decision-making process that includes “appropriate investigations and studies”, gives the public access to information, and provides those concerned effective legal remedies.29 In construing indigenous and tribal property rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that the State must consult with the community regarding any proposed concessions or other activities that may affect their lands and natural resources, ensure that no concession is issued without a prior assessment of its environmental and social impacts and guarantee that the community receives a reasonable benefit from any such plan if approved. With respect to “large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact”, the State must do more than consult; it must obtain the community‟s “free, prior, and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions”.30 42. Making this connection can create a kind of virtuous circle: strong compliance with procedural duties produces a healthier environment, which in turn contributes to a higher degree of compliance with substantive rights such as rights to life, health, property and privacy. The converse is also true. Failure to meet procedural obligations can result in a degraded environment, which interferes with the full enjoyment of other human rights. 43. To be clear, a relationship of this type between substantive rights and procedural duties does not preclude the possibility of other human rights obligations relevant to environmental protection. Obligations to respect procedural rights obviously have legal bases separate from any such obligations arising from environmental threats to substantive rights. And environmental rights may also give rise to certain minimum substantive environmental standards that apply regardless of whether procedural requirements are followed. For example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its general comment No. 15 (2002) on the right to water, has construed the right to health as encompassing “taking steps on a non-discriminatory basis to prevent threats to health from unsafe and toxic water conditions … States parties should ensure that natural water resources are protected from contamination by harmful substances and pathogenic microbes” (para. 8). The scope and content of the substantive components of environmental rights like these also require further study. 28 29 30 14 African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights, Ogoniland Case, para. 53. Taşkin v. Turkey, para. 119. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka People v. Suriname, paras. 129 and 134. The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples has also explained in a report to the Council, in the context of extraction of natural resources from indigenous land, that requirements of consultation and consent help to safeguard indigenous peoples‟ substantive rights, including rights to property, health and culture (A/HRC/21/47, paras. 49 and 50).