30 rather than a right, to property of members of the Saramaka people. The Court will address each issue in said order. C.1) Land tenure system of the members of the Saramaka people 100. First, the issue regarding the alleged lack of clarity of the members of the Saramaka people’s traditional land ownership regime was thoroughly addressed by the parties, witnesses, and expert witnesses in the present case. From the evidence and testimonies submitted before the Court, it is clear that the lös, or clans, are the primary land-owning entities within Saramaka society.98 Each lö is highly autonomous and allocates land and resource rights among their constituent bëë (extended family groups) and their individual members in accordance with Saramaka customary law.99 Pursuant to this customary law, the Captains or members of a lö may not alienate or otherwise encumber the communal property of their lö, and a lö may not encumber or alienate their lands from the collectively held corpus of Saramaka territory.100 On this last point, Head Captain and Fiscali Eddie Fonkie explained that “[i]f a lö tried to sell its land, the other lö would have the right to object and to stop [such transaction] because it would affect the rights and life of all Saramaka people. The lö are very autonomous and […] do not interfere in each other’s affairs unless it affects the interests of all Saramaka people.”101 This is because the territory “belongs to the Saramakas, ultimately. [That is,] it belongs to the Saramakas as a people.”102 101. In any case, the alleged lack of clarity as to the land tenure system of the Saramakas does not present an insurmountable obstacle for the State, which has the duty to consult with the members of the Saramaka people and seek clarification of this issue (infra para. 129), in order to comply with its obligations under Article 21 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 2 of such instrument. C.2) Complexity of issues involved and the State’s concern regarding discrimination against non-indigenous or non-tribal members 102. Two additional related arguments submitted by the State as to why it has failed to legally recognize and protect the land-tenure systems of indigenous and tribal communities’ are the alleged “complexities and sensitivities” of the issues involved, and the concern that legislation in favor of indigenous and tribal peoples may be perceived as being discriminatory towards the rest of the population. Regarding the first issue, the Court observes that the State may not abstain from complying with its international obligations under the American Convention merely because of the alleged difficulty to do so. The Court shares the State’s concern over the complexity of the issues involved; nevertheless, the 98 Cf. Testimony of Head Captain and Fiscali Wazen Eduards, supra note 61 (transcription of public hearing, p. 8); Testimony of Captain Cesar Adjako, supra note 68 (transcription of public hearing, p. 16), Affidavit of Silvi Adjako, April 7 and 8, 2007 (case file of affidavits and observations, appendix 5, folios 1919-1925); Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 59); Expert opinion of Salomon Emanuels, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 67 and 69), and Affidavit of Head Captain and Fiscali Eddie Fonkie, supra note 66, (folios 1911-1912). 99 Cf. Testimony of Head Captain and Fiscali Wazen Eduards, supra note 61 (transcription of public hearing, p. 8); Testimony of Captain Cesar Adjako, supra note 68 (transcription of public hearing, p. 16); Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 59); Expert opinion of Salomon Emanuels, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 67 and 69), and Affidavit of Head Captain and Fiscali Eddie Fonkie, supra note 66. 100 Cf. Affidavit of Head Captain and Fiscali Eddie Fonkie, supra note 66, and Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 60). 101 Affidavit of Head Captain and Fiscali Eddie Fonkie, supra note 66. 102 Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 60).