34 that the “community forests” permits are essentially revocable forestry concessions that convey limited and restricted use rights, and are therefore an inadequate recognition of the Saramakas’ property rights.113 Likewise, as the implementing laws required to issue community forests have yet to be adopted, the legal certainty of said title may be called into question.114 114. Furthermore, Article 41 of the Forest Management Act of 1992 also states that customary rights of tribal inhabitants, with respect to their villages and settlements, as well as their agricultural plots, will be respected “as much as possible”.115 This provision inadequately limits the scope of “respect” afforded to the members of the Saramaka tribe’s territory solely to “villages, settlements and agricultural plots”. Such limitation fails to take into account the all-encompassing relationship that members of indigenous and tribal peoples have with their territory as a whole, not just with their villages, settlements, and agricultural plots. In accordance with this Court’s analysis, the State’s duty is much higher in order to ensure, guarantee and protect the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people, within the framework of their communal system of property (supra paras. 85-96). Thus, the Forest Management Act also fails to give legal effect to the communal property rights of the Saramakas. * * * 115. In sum, the State’s legal framework merely grants the members of the Saramaka people a privilege to use land, which does not guarantee the right to effectively control their territory without outside interference. The Court has previously held that, rather than a privilege to use the land, which can be taken away by the State or trumped by real property rights of third parties, members of indigenous and tribal peoples must obtain title to their territory in order to guarantee its permanent use and enjoyment.116 This title must be recognized and respected, not only in practice, but also in law, in order to ensure its legal certainty. In order to obtain such title, the territory traditionally used and occupied by the members of the Saramaka people must first be delimited and demarcated, in consultation with such people and other neighboring peoples.117 In this regard, the Court has previously declared that “a strictly juridical or abstract recognition of indigenous lands, territories or resources lacks true meaning where the property has not been physically established and delimited.”118 116. Ultimately, the State has expressed its commitment “to improve the current codification of the land rights regime of its tribal and indigenous people.” For this purpose, the President of Suriname appointed a committee of experts in the year 2006 to address the issue. Nevertheless, to date, the State’s legal system does not recognize the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people in connection to their territory, but rather, grants a privilege or permission to use and occupy the land at the discretion of the State. For this reason, the Court is of the opinion that the State has not complied with its duty to give domestic legal effect to the members of the Saramaka people’s property rights in 113 Testimony of Rene Somopawiro, supra note 110 (transcription of public hearing, p. 52). Cf. Testimony of Rene Somopawiro, supra note 110 (transcription of public hearing, p. 52). 115 Cf. Article 41 of the Forest Management Act, supra note 110, (folios 74-75). 116 Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, para. 153; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 215, and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 77, para. 209. 117 The Court observes that in the Moiwana Community case the State was ordered to create an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the traditional territories of the Moiwana community. Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 77, para. 209. 118 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 143. 114