50 168. The Court observes that the recognition of the juridical personality of individual members of a community is evidently necessary for their enjoyment of other rights, such as the right to life and personal integrity.184 Yet, such individual recognition fails to take into account the manner in which members of indigenous and tribal peoples in general, and the Saramaka in particular, enjoy and exercise a particular right; that is, the right to use and enjoy property collectively in accordance with their ancestral traditions. 169. The Court observes that any individual member of the Saramaka people may seek judicial protection against violations of his or her individual property rights, and that a judgment in his or her favor may also have a favorable effect on the community as a whole. In a juridical sense, such individual members do not represent the community as a whole. The decisions pertaining to the use of such individual property are up to the individual and not to the Saramaka people in accordance with their traditions. Consequently, a recognition of the right to juridical personality of the Saramaka people as a whole would help prevent such situations, as the true representatives of the juridical personality would be chosen in accordance with their own traditions, and the decisions affecting the Saramaka territory will be the responsibility of those representatives, not of the individual members. 170. A similar situation has occurred in the present case, whereby the State has constantly objected to whether the twelve captains of the twelve Saramaka clans (lös) truly represent the will of the community as a whole (supra paras. 19-24). The State additionally asserted that the true representative of the community should be the Gaa’man, and not others. This controversy over who actually represents the Saramaka people is precisely a natural consequence of the lack of recognition of their juridical personality.185 171. The recognition of their juridical personality is a way, albeit not the only one, to ensure that the community, as a whole, will be able to fully enjoy and exercise their right to property, in accordance with their communal property system, and the right to equal access to judicial protection against violations of such right. 172. The Court considers that the right to have their juridical personality recognized by the State is one of the special measures owed to indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they are able to use and enjoy their territory in accordance with their own traditions. This is a natural consequence of the recognition of the right of members of indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights in a communal manner. 173. In this case, the State does not recognize that the Saramaka people can enjoy and exercise property rights as a community.186 Furthermore, the Court observes that other communities in Suriname have been denied the right to seek judicial protection against alleged violations of their collective property rights precisely because a judge considered they did not have the legal capacity necessary to request such protection.187 This places the Saramaka people in a vulnerable situation where individual property rights may trump their rights over communal property, and where the Saramaka people may not seek, as a 184 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, paras. 188-190. During the proceedings of this case before the Court, and previously during the proceedings of the petition before the Commission, different names have been used to identify it. The Commission’s Article 50 report uses the name “12 Saramaka Clans”; the President’s Orders of March 30 and April 14, 2007, used the name “Saramaka Community”, and in several communications between the Court’s Secretariat and the parties, the name “Wazen Eduards et al.” has also been used. Nevertheless, in recognition of the right of the members of the Saramaka people to use and enjoy property in accordance with their communal system and ancestral traditions as a tribal community, the Court hereby declares that the name “Saramaka People” is more appropriate. 186 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 77, para. 86.5. 187 Affidavit of Mariska Muskiet of April 3, 2007 (case file of affidavits and observations, appendix 7, folio 1946). 185