14 […] the State failed to comply with the three safeguards when it issued small-scale gold-mining concessions within traditional Saramaka territory. That is, such concessions were issued without performing prior environmental and social impact assessments, and without consulting the Saramaka people in accordance with their traditions, or guaranteeing their members a reasonable share in the benefits of the project. As such, the State violated the members of the Saramaka people’s right to property under Article 21 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that judgment. 54. The Tribunal did not specifically address other types of development or investment activities within or that affect Saramaka territory. Nonetheless, the Tribunal reiterates that, in the process of issuing concessions within or that affect Saramaka territory, or any other indigenous or tribal territory, the State has a duty to comply with its obligations under the American Convention as interpreted by the Court in its jurisprudence, particularly in light of the Case of the Saramaka People and other cases involving indigenous and tribal peoples’ land rights. 55. In this sense, the Court observes that in Operative Paragraph 5 of the Judgment, in which the Tribunal ordered the State to delimit, demarcate, and grant collective title over the territory of the members of the Saramaka people, the Court further stated that [u]ntil said delimitation, demarcation, and titling of the Saramaka territory has been carried out, Suriname must abstain from acts which might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the territory to which the members of the Saramaka people are entitled, unless the State obtains the free, informed and prior consent of the Saramaka people. With regards to the concessions already granted within traditional Saramaka territory, the State must review them, in light of the present Judgment and the Court’s jurisprudence, in order to evaluate whether a modification of the rights of the concessionaires is necessary in order to preserve the survival of the Saramaka people. 56. that Furthermore, the Tribunal hereby reiterates the text of paragraph 213, which states [in] accordance with its constant practice, the Court retains its authority, inherent to its attributions and derived from the provisions of Article 65 of the American Convention, to monitor full execution of this Judgment. The instant case shall be closed once the State has fully complied with the provisions ordered herein. […] 57. Hence, considering that some of the issues raised by the State pertain to matters that are better suited to be treated by the Tribunal under its authority to monitor the full execution of the Judgment, the Court considers it sufficient, for purposes of the present request for interpretation, to reiterate the aforementioned content of the Judgment, and will supervise the implementation of the Court’s orders pursuant to the relevant monitoring procedure. VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 58. The State questioned whether the Court considered its argument in the sense that Article 3 of the American Convention “guarantees that every ‘person’ has the right to be recognized as such before the law and not as a ‘distinct people’.”