particular, the Court referred to development and investment plans as “any activity that may affect the integrity of the lands and natural resources […]; in particular, any proposal related to logging or mining concessions.”242 207. In this regard, the Court considers that the State’s duty in relation to this guarantee must be complied with prior to the execution of activities that may have a significant impact on the interests of the indigenous and tribal peoples, such as the exploration, and the exploitation or extraction stages. In this case, although the mining concession was granted in 1958, the bauxite extraction operations began in 1997 – that is, almost 40 years later – at which time, the company had determined the precise place where the extraction operations would be implemented in relation to the rest of the territory that had previously been explored. The guarantee of effective participation should have been put in practice before the start of the mining extraction or exploitation operations, which did not happen in this case. In particular, with regard to the Kaliña and Lokono peoples who were nearby and had a direct relationship with the area, and whose traditional territory was adversely affected (supra para. 92). 208. However, the information that the parties have provided to the Court does not reveal the existence of any domestic mechanism, law or measure that would guarantee the effective participation of the indigenous and tribal peoples, even though the State has indicated certain measures it was allegedly taking at the present time to ensure this right (infra para. 210). 209. In this regard, the State argued that, under Suriname law, the rights and interests of the indigenous peoples and the Maroons were taken into consideration when the State decided to award a concession, and referred to article 41 of the Forest Management Act243 and to article 25(1) of the Mining Decree.244 The former established that “The customary law rights of the inhabitants of the interior living in tribal communities in their villages and settlements as well as their agricultural plots, will be respected as much as possible”; and the latter indicated that “the application for exploration rights should take place in conformity with article 10 and give: […] b. a report on the villages existing in the terrain and in the vicinity of the requested terrain and on the residents, according to tribe.” However, the Court finds that although the domestic norms recognized the “interests” of the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples when granting logging and mining concessions, this did not include the right to effective participation. 245 participate and influence the decision-making process. Cf. Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, paras. 217 and 223. 242 Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 129. The Court understands, also, that a mining project has different stages, including, above all, the exploration stage, the exploitation stage, and that of the project conclusion. Cf. Mining Decree of May 8, 1986, articles 21, 25 and 30, which indicate reconnaissance, exploration and exploitation as the stages of a large-scale mining project in Suriname (evidence file, folios 428, 431 and 435). 243 Forest Management Act of September 18, 1992, article 41: “1. a. The customary law rights of the inhabitants of the interior living in tribal communities in their villages and settlements as well as their agricultural plots, will be respected as much as possible. b. In case of violations of the customary rights as mentioned under a, an appeal in writing may be made to the President, which appeal is to be drawn up by the relevant traditional authority of the tribal inhabitants of the interior stating the reasons for the appeal. The President will appoint a committee to advise him on the matter. 2. Upon consultation with the Minister responsible for regional development, the Minister will declare certain forestry areas to be communal forest for the benefit of the tribal inhabitants of the interior. The utilization and management of the communal forest are further established by state decree. 3. No concession fee shall be due for the communal forest. The relevant provisions of this act will accordingly be applicable to timber, wood products and nontimber products to be transported from the communal forest and intended for possible commercial use. The gatherer will then owe the charges mentioned in article 32 paragraph 1b and article 40, and the compensation mentioned in article 13 […]” (evidence file, folio 2727). 244 Mining Decree of May 8, 1986, article 25 (evidence file, folio 431). 245 Cf. Expert opinion of Mariska Muskiet dated April 30, 2007 (merits file, folios 452 and ff). 55