B.1 Appropriate and effective remedies in domestic law to protect the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples 242. In the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, based on the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court examined the provisions of articles 1386, 1387, 1388, 1392 and 1393 of the Civil Code; the Mining Decree (Decree E 58) of May 8, 1986, and article 41(1)(b) of the 1992 Forestry Management Act, in order to determine whether, under these laws, it was possible to obtain satisfactory reparation for the presumed violations of the collective property rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples.273 243. Regarding the Civil Code, the Court considered that the judicial remedy it established was inappropriate and ineffective because it was only available to individuals who claimed a violation of their individual rights to property, and did not recognize the right to collective property. 274 The Court also noted that, in order to file a legal action, the Mining Decree required that the claimant hold a right or interest issued by the State that could be registered; however, the members of the Saramaka people did not possess a title to their traditional territory, so that the apparent remedy was inappropriate and ineffective.275 Lastly, the Court observed that the procedure established in the Forestry Management Act for filing written claims before the President of Suriname was ineffective, because the complaints filed by members of the Saramaka people were left unanswered.276 244. In the instant case, the State provided no documentation or information that would reveal any change in the norms examined in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Consequently, the Court considers that these norms continue to be inappropriate and ineffective to resolve presumed violations of the collective property rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname. 245. Nevertheless, the facts of this case reveal that the alleged victims have based themselves on article 22 of Suriname’s Constitution to file written petitions before different State authorities in order to claim their rights (supra para. 65 and infra para. 265). The Court notes that this article establishes that everyone has the right to submit written petitions to public authorities, and the law will establish the respective procedure. This regulates the fundamental right of petition, while delegating the creation of specific remedies to norms of a lesser rank, such as the laws. 246. However, the Court finds that, for this right of petition to be effective, it must include a prompt, coherent, complete and detailed response to the matters indicated in the petition, regardless of whether or not it is favorable to the request. Thus, the Court recalls that Article 24 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.” 247. The State also provided the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982, known as the “L-Decree.” This decree establishes that, in order to request the award of State-owned land, the applicant must present a written petition to the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Land and Forestry Management,277 indicating the location of the land and the intended use.278 The 273 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, paras. 179 to 184. 274 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 179. 275 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 183. 276 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 184. 277 Cf. Article 1 of the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982 (evidence file, folio 2691). 63