a) Three cases9 filed in 1975-1976 in the Suriname courts by the now defunct Association of Indigenous Peoples. In all of these cases, it was argued that the State had an obligation to recognize indigenous people’s property rights. According to the Petitioners, all of these cases were dismissed by the judiciary as lacking legal merit. b) Presentation of joint position to the State by indigenous peoples and Maroons. In 1995 and 1996, the traditional authorities of indigenous peoples and Maroons convened meetings to agree on, and present a joint position to the State demanding recognition of their property and other rights. The State responded by establishing a Commission in 1997, known as the Commission on State Lands and Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, with a mandate to provide proposals and recommendations to the State to resolve this issue. According to the Petitioners, the Commission was subsequently dissolved without issuing a final report. 19. In the absence of any legal recognition, the Petitioners contend that the communal rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples have been adversely affected by (a) the issue of individual land titles to non-indigenous persons; (b) the issue of mining concessions; and (c) the establishment of nature reserves, all of which subsist or operate in the traditional territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, without their consent. Issue of individual land titles 20. According to the Petitioners, the Lower Marowijne Peoples do not hold title to their traditional land, territory or resources and there is no mechanism under Suriname law to permit them to obtain effective communal title. Under Suriname law, the ownership of the traditional territory of the Lower Marowijne people is legally vested in the State. According to the Petitioners, Suriname citizens (including indigenous peoples) may obtain individual title to State lands, but only by means of a revocable leasehold interest (Grondhuur) for period of 1540 years. According to the Petitioners, the titleholder is required to pay rent to the State in exchange for this leasehold interest. The Petitioners state that Grondhuur titles can only be held by recognized legal persons, which in Suriname, are limited to individuals, corporate bodies or registered foundations. According to the Petitioners, indigenous peoples, their communities or other traditional land-holding entities are not recognized as legal persons for the purpose of holding title.10 21. The Petitioners indicate that this is the situation that confronts all indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname. Against this background, the Petitioners claim that four of the villages of the Lower Marowijne Peoples have been affected by the grants of individual titles to nonindigenous persons. According to the Petitioners, between 1976 and 2006, the State issued individual land titles to non-indigenous persons in Erowarte, Tapuku, Pierrekondre, and Wan Shi Sha.11 The Petitioners claim that the titleholders have constructed vacation homes, which they use only intermittently for recreational purposes. In 2006, the Petitioners claim that the Captain of the Wan Shi Sha village was informed that a titleholder has been authorized by the State to construct a hotel within the village, and that construction commenced shortly thereafter. The Petitioners state that in 1998, villagers of the Wan Shi Sha community attempted to stop a Paramaribo resident from rebuilding his vacation home on land located in the village. The resident sued12 the Captain of the Wan Shi Sha village, claiming that he was unable to enjoy his property rights because of the actions of the Captain and the villagers. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he held valid title to the land, and that the Captain had unlawfully hindered the plaintiff’s efforts to rebuild his home. The court rejected the Captain’s defense that the land was traditionally and immemorially owned by the Lokono indigenous people of Wan Shi Sha. Case No. 165, Association of Indigenous People v Suriname, 17 March 1975; Association of Indigenous People v Suriname, A.R. No. 754180, 26 September 1975; and Association of Indigenous People v Suriname, A.R. No. 753160, 13 January 1976. 10 The Petitioners indicate that this status quo was confirmed by the Inter-American Court in the Moiwana Case (supra) and by the Commission in Twelve Saramaka Clans (supra). 11 A partial list of the titleholders is attached to the Petitioners’ petition as Annex J. 12 Tjang A Sijn v Zaalman and others, Cantonal Court, First Canton, Paramaribo, May 21, 1998. 9 5