CEJIL

- Library
- Sign in

ANNEX III Note: This map is included for illustrative purposes. The map was presented by the victims’ representatives attached to the report of expert witness Stuart Kirsh. It shows the area granted under the bauxite concession within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve. 88

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Uwazi is developed by
CEJIL
Library
Login

Info
17Relationships

Search Tips

Search text

Type something in the search box to get some results.

I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE4
II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT7
III JURISDICTION10
IV EVIDENCE10
A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence10
B. Admission of the evidence11
B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence11
B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence12
C. Assessment of the evidence12
V FACTS13
A. The Kaliña and Lokono peoples13
B. Maroon settlements in the territory claimed as ancestral by the Kaliña and Lokono peoples16
C. The indigenous peoples under the Suriname legal system18
D. The steps taken by the indigenous peoples to obtain recognition of their rights19
D.1 Steps taken prior to the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (November 12, 1987)19
D.2 Steps taken following the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (November 12, 1987)20
E. Creation of the nature reserves21
E.1 The Wia Wia and Galibi Nature Reserves22
E.2 The Wane Kreek Nature Reserve23
E.2.1 Consultation process24
E.2.2 Bauxite mining activities 11325
E.2.3 Other natural resource extraction activities27
F. The urban subdivision project called "Tuinstad Albina" (“Garden City Albina”)27
VI MERITS28
A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties28
B. Considerations of the Court29
A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties31
B. Considerations of the Court34
B.1 Interpretation of the right to collective property and participation in public affairs of the indigenous peoples in this case34
B.2 The failure to recognize the right to collective property of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples36
B.2.1 The right to collective ownership and the obligation to delimit, demarcate, grant title to, and ensure the use and enjoyment of the collective territory36
B.2.1.1 The failure to delimit, demarcate and grant title in this case37
B.2.2 The right to request the restitution of the territory, because individual titles have been granted to non-indigenous and non-tribal third parties39
B.3 Nature reserves in the traditional territory44
B.3.1 The alleged persistence of the nature reserve and the claims44
B.3.2 Alleged restrictions for the indigenous peoples in the nature reserves45
B.3.2.1 Compatibility of the rights of the indigenous peoples and the protection of the environment45
B.3.2.2 The alleged impact in the Galibi and Wane Kreek Nature Reserves49
B.4 The right to collective property in relation to the mining concession within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve53
VI-III RIGHT TOJUDICIAL PROTECTION(ARTICLE25) IN RELATION TOARTICLES 13, 1(1)AND 2OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION61
A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties61
B. Considerations of the Court62
B.1 Appropriate and effective remedies in domestic law to protect the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples63
B.2 Appropriateness and effectiveness of the judicial proceedings and petitions filed before State authorities66
B.3 The right of access to information in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention67
C. Conclusion69
VII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)70
A. Injured party70
B. Restitution71
C. Rehabilitation of the territory74
D. Creation of a community development fund75
E. Guarantees of non-repetition76
E.1 Measures for the recognition of juridical personality, and guarantees of collective property, participation, and access to justice77
E.2 Training measures79
F. Satisfaction79
F.1 Publication and radio broadcast of the Judgment79
F.2 Another measure that was requested: public act to acknowledge the State’s responsibility80
G. Costs and expenses80
H. Method of complying with the payments ordered82
VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS82
IX ANNEXES86
PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ALBERTO PÉREZ PÉREZ96

Kaliña and Lokoño. Judgment. November 25, 2015

IACourt judgment

Preview

Type

Costs
Merits
Reparations

Date: Nov 25, 2015

Mechanism

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

Number: C 309

Country

Suriname

Signatories

Alberto Pérez Pérez
Diego García-Sayán
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
Eduardo Vio Grossi
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto
Manuel E. Ventura Robles
Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas

Separate vote

Alberto Pérez Pérez
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

Primary Documents

Pueblos Kaliña y Lokono. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment. November 25, 2015.pdf
English
Download View
Kaliña y Lokono. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 25 de noviembre de 2015.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Supporting files

Kaliña y Lokono. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 25 de noviembre de 2015.doc2.67 MB

Pueblos Kaliña y Lokono. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment. November 25, 2015.docx2.2 MB

No References

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Signatories6
- Judge and/or Commissioners6
Signatory Separate Vote3
- Judge and/or Commissioners3
País1
- Country1
Mecanismo1
- Mechanism1
Separate Votes2
- Separate vote2
No Label1
- Case1
IACourt Documents3
- Order of the President IACHR1
- Hearing2

Create Reference

Select relationship type

Relacionado a
CorteIDH
CIDH
Votos separados
Paises
Jueces intervinientes
País
Multi Select
Mecanismo
Firmantes
Sexo
Tipo
Firmante Voto separado
Estado
Descriptores
Geolocalización de los hechos del caso
Medidas de Protección

Search Tips

Connect to a paragraph

Connect to an entity

Disable highlights

Add to table of contents

Notifications

You're all caught up

New activity will show up here.