populations, including indigenous and tribal peoples, and pay special attention when such rights are violated.264 226. Based on the above, the Court finds that, because the State did not ensure that an independent social and environmental impact assessment was made prior to the start-up of bauxite mining, and did not supervise the assessment that was made subsequently, it failed to comply with this safeguard; in particular, considering that the activities would be carried out in a protected nature reserve and within the traditional territories of several peoples. iii) Shared benefits 227. When considering development plans within the territories of indigenous and tribal peoples, the State should, within reason, share the benefits of the project in question, as appropriate. This concept is inherent in the right to compensation recognized in Article 21(2) of the Convention, which refers not only to total deprivation of a property title by means of expropriation by the State, but also includes the deprivation of the normal use and enjoyment of that property.265 228. In this case, the victims’ representatives asserted that there is no evidence in the case file before the Court that the Kaliña and Lokono peoples benefited from the mining concession granted by the State; rather, to the contrary, this caused severe damage to the environment in the area, thereby prejudicing these peoples. However, the State argued that the minimum damage was caused and that, in any case, the Kaliña and Lokono peoples had been compensated by the fact that they could use and enjoy the highway built in order to transport their timber. 229. In this regard, the Court finds that, according to the evidence in the file, the domestic laws of Suriname do not recognize this safeguard. Also, even though there is no dispute that the indigenous peoples use the highway, this access cannot be considered to provide a direct, mutually-agreed benefit for the peoples in light of the above-mentioned standards; above all, bearing in mind that the highway was part of the exploitation project that had an adverse impact on the natural resources of their territory. Hence, this requirement was not met either. iv) Conclusion regarding the safeguards 230. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State of Suriname failed to ensure the effective participation of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples by means of a consultation process. The Court also concludes that a social and environmental impact assessment was not made, and that the benefits of the said mining project were not shared. Furthermore, Suriname has not adopted mechanisms in order to guarantee these safeguards. Consequently, the State has violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples and their members. 264 According to the paragraph 18 of the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie: “The initial step in conducting human rights due diligence is to identify and assess the nature of the actual and potential adverse human rights impacts with which a business enterprise may be involved. The purpose is to understand the specific impacts on specific people, given a specific context of operations. Typically this includes assessing the human rights context prior to a proposed business activity, where possible; identifying who may be affected; cataloguing the relevant human rights standards and issues; and projecting how the proposed activity and associated business relationships could have adverse human rights impacts on those identified. In this process, business enterprises should pay special attention to any particular human rights impacts on individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization, and bear in mind the different risks that may be faced by women and men.” UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ G11/121/90/PDF/ G1112190.pdf?OpenElement. 265 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, paras. 138 and 139. 60