31 inconsistent with the fact that, as has been proven, Surinamese courts and other State authorities have failed to enforce and give effect to those rights at the domestic level. Moreover, Suriname points to no concrete steps taken to accelerate this process of recognition or achieve its ultimate goals effectively. 97. With respect to the lack of recognition of the property rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname, the Inter-American Court has previously stated: [T]he State’s legal framework merely grants the members of the Saramaka people a privilege to use land, which does not guarantee the right to effectively control their territory without outside interference. The Court has previously held that, rather than a privilege to use the land, which can be taken away by the State or trumped by real property rights of third parties, members of indigenous and tribal peoples must obtain title to their territory in order to guarantee its permanent use and enjoyment. This title must be recognized and respected, not only in practice, but also in law, in order to ensure its legal certainty. . . . [T]o date, the State’s legal system does not recognize the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people in connection to their territory, but rather, grants a privilege or permission to use and occupy the land at the discretion of the State. For this reason, the Court is of the opinion that the State has not complied with its duty to give domestic legal effect to the members of the Saramaka people’s property rights in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 2 and 1(1) of such instrument.181 98. The Inter-American Commission sees no reason to depart from this holding in the present case, as Suriname has not shown that the recognition of property rights of indigenous peoples in its domestic legislation has changed since the Saramaka judgment. 99. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR finds that Suriname has failed to recognize the Kaliña and Lokono’s collective property rights over their lands and territories, in violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of that treaty.182 2. Other Alleged Violations of the Kaliña and Lokono People’s Property Rights The petitioners allege that the State has violated the alleged victims’ property rights by (a) issuing and maintaining individual land titles to non-indigenous individuals in their ancestral lands; (b) granting mining concessions and allowing mining operations over part of their ancestral lands; and (c) establishing and maintaining three Nature Reserves in part of their ancestral lands. This section analyzes each alleged violation separately. 100. 181 I/A Court H.R., Saramaka People v. Suriname Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No. 172, paras. 115-116 (internal citations omitted). 182 The Commission notes that in the Case of the Saramaka People, the Inter-American Court ordered Suriname to “recognize, protect, guarantee and give legal effect to the right of the members of the Saramaka people to hold collective title of the territory they have traditionally used and occupied, which includes the lands and natural resources necessary for their social, cultural and economic survival.” Case of the Saramaka People, Operative Paragraph 7. In its second Order Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, the Court noted that the State had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with this point of the judgment, and requested additional information as well as a schedule for its compliance with these measures of reparation. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2011, para. 30.