Recognition of collective juridical personality 17. In this Judgment, the Court, based on previous cases concerning Suriname, 13 declared that: 114. In conclusion, since the domestic laws of Suriname do not recognize the collective exercise of the juridical personality of the indigenous and tribal peoples, this Court finds that the State has violated Article 3 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, in relation to Article 2 of this instrument. In addition, for the effects of the instant case, the failure to recognize the juridical personality of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples has an impact on the violation of other rights recognized in Articles 1.1, 21 and 25 of the Convention. 18. We concur with this reasoning, because the recognition of collective juridical personality is an essential requirements to ensure that the indigenous and tribal peoples may exercise different rights that, owing to their communal characteristics, need to be protected collectively. Thus, the Court reiterated that: 107. […] “the right that the State recognize their juridical personality is one of the special measures that should be granted to the indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they may enjoy their territories according to their traditions. This is the natural consequence of the recognition of the right of the members of the indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights collectively.” 109. […] “the recognition of juridical personality is one way, although not the only way, to ensure that the community as a whole may enjoy and exercise fully the right to property, in accordance with their system of communal ownership, as well as the right to equal judicial protection against any violation of this right.” 19. It should be noted that the Court took the State to task, considering that this non-compliance was “particularly serious owing to the provisions of the judgment in the case of the Saramaka People of November 28, 2007 (supra para. 107), which were reiterated to the State for the effects of that case, in the order on monitoring compliance of November 23, 2011.”14 20. Consequently, when establishing reparations, in addition to the other elements ordered in favor of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples,15 the Court ordered Suriname, as a guarantee of non-repetion, to:16 13 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 86.5, and Case of the Saramaka People, supra, paras. 173 and 174. 14 Cf. Paragraph 113 of the Judgment. 15 Cf. Paragraph 279 a) of the Judgment. 16 Cf. Paragraph 305 of the Judgment. 6