35 (iii) the State must delimit, demarcate and grant collective title to the lands to the members of the indigenous communities;199 (iv) the members of the indigenous peoples who, for reasons beyond their control, have left their lands or lost possession of them, retain ownership rights, even without legal title, except when the land has been legitimately transferred to third parties in good faith;200 (v) the members of the indigenous peoples who have involuntarily lost possession of their lands, which have been legitimately transferred to innocent third parties, have the right to recover them or to obtain other lands of the same size and quality;201 (vi) so long as the close relationship between an indigenous people and the territory exists, so does the ownership right.202 Based on existing jurisprudence, and on the evidence presented, the Commission considers that the petitioners have shown that the interferences with the alleged victims’ ability to use and occupy their ancestral lands, territories and natural resources are incompatible with the protections of Article 21. 109. In addition, Suriname argues that the title-holders are innocent third parties whose property rights should prevail over those of petitioners. With respect to the non-indigenous third parties who hold titles to traditional indigenous lands, the Inter-American Court has also developed standards. The Court has stated that: 110. States must assess, on a case by case basis, the restrictions that would result from recognizing one right over the other [i.e., indigenous versus non-indigenous]. Thus, for example, the States must take into account that indigenous territorial rights encompass a broader and different concept that relates to the collective right to survival as an organized people, with control over their habitat as a necessary condition for reproduction of their culture, for their own development and to carry out their life aspirations. Property of the land ensures that the members of the indigenous communities preserve their cultural heritage.203 199 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 109 (citing Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 101, para. 164; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 215, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 194). 200 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 109 (citing Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 133, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 128). 201 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No., para. 109 (citing Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, paras. 128 to 130). 202 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 112. 203 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 215, and 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, para. 146.