25 women.72 The men, according to Dr. Price, fish and “hunt wild pig, deer, tapir, all sorts of monkeys, different kinds of birds, everything that Saramakas eat”.73 Furthermore, the women gather various fruits, plants and minerals, which they use in a variety of ways, including making baskets, cooking oil, and roofs for their dwellings.74 84. Thus, in accordance with all of the above, the Court considers that the members of the Saramaka people make up a tribal community whose social, cultural and economic characteristics are different from other sections of the national community, particularly because of their special relationship with their ancestral territories, and because they regulate themselves, at least partially, by their own norms, customs, and/or traditions. Accordingly, the Court will now address whether and to what extent the members of the tribal peoples require special measures that guarantee the full exercise of their rights. A.2) Special measures of protection owed to members of the tribal community that guarantee the full exercise of their rights 85. This Court has previously held, based on Article 1(1) of the Convention, that members of indigenous and tribal communities require special measures that guarantee the full exercise of their rights, particularly with regards to their enjoyment of property rights, in order to safeguard their physical and cultural survival.75 Other sources of international law have similarly declared that such special measures are necessary.76 Particularly, in the Moiwana case, this Court determined that another Maroon community living in Suriname was also not indigenous to the region, but rather constituted a tribal community that settled in Suriname in the 17th and 18th century, and that this tribal community had “a profound and all-encompassing relationship to their ancestral lands” that was centered, not “on the individual, but rather on the community as a whole”.77 This special relationship to land, as 72 Cf. Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 55); Report of Professor Richard Price, supra note 68, and Professor Richard Price, “Report in support of Provisional Measures”, supra note 63, (folio 16). 73 Cf. Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 55); Report of Professor Richard Price, supra note 68, and Professor Richard Price, “Report in support of Provisional Measures”, supra note 63, (folio 16). 74 Cf. Expert opinion of Professor Richard Price, supra note 62 (transcription of public hearing, p. 55); Report of Professor Richard Price, supra note 68, and Professor Richard Price, “Report in support of Provisional Measures”, supra note 63, (folio 16). 75 Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, paras. 148-149, and 151; Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 118-121, and 131, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005 Series C No. 125, paras. 124, 131, 135-137 and 154. 76 As early as 1972, in the resolution the Commission adopted on “Special Protection for Indigenous Populations – Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination”, the Commission proclaimed that “for historical reasons and because of moral and humanitarian principles, special protection for indigenous populations constitutes a sacred commitment of states”. Cf. Resolution on Special Protection for Indigenous Populations. Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V/II/.29 Doc. 41 rev. 2, March 13, 1973, cited in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 12/85, Case No. 7615, Yanomami. Brazil, March 5, 1985, para. 8. Cf. also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.96 Doc.10 rev 1, April 24, 1997, Chapter IX (stating that “within international law generally, and inter-American law specifically, special protections for indigenous peoples may be required for them to exercise their rights fully and equally with the rest of the population. Additionally, special protections for indigenous peoples may be required to ensure their physical and cultural survival -- a right protected in a range of international instruments and conventions”); UNCERD, General Recommendation No. 23, Rights of indigenous peoples (Fifty-first session, 1997), U.N. Doc. A/52/18, annex V, August 18, 1997, para. 4 (calling upon States to take certain measures in order to recognize and ensure the rights of indigenous peoples), and ECHR, Case of Connors v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of May 27, 2004, Application no. 66746/01, para. 84 (declaring that States have an obligation to take positive steps to provide for and protect the different lifestyles of minorities as a way to provide equality under the law). 77 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 132-133.