30 natural resources.171 Most of the members of the Kaliña and Lokono have and maintain a lifestyle in which they practice traditional indigenous economic, social, and cultural activities.172 In short, the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples have collective property rights, and the State has an obligation to recognize those rights. 95. The Inter-American Court has twice looked at the lack of the recognition of property rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname.173 It has held twice that Suriname’s failure to recognize these rights is inconsistent with the protections of the American Convention.174 International bodies such as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,175 the United Nations Human Rights Committee,176 and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples177 have also noted that Surinamese law does not recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their communal land, territories, and resources. In the present case, Suriname has explicitly acknowledged that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples “are assumed to have the right under international law to use and enjoy, with the parameters established by the [Inter-American] Court, the land allegedly traditionally used and owned by them.”178 96. Despite this acknowledgment and reiterated pronouncements by various international bodies, the Article 21 property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono remain unrecognized by the laws of Suriname. The State does not dispute this, but rather takes the position that in Suriname “the process of recognition in [its] domestic legislation of indigenous land rights is not yet completed or even only in early stages of development.”179 Suriname’s position is additionally that the property rights of indigenous peoples “exist independent[ly] of their recognition by the State,” and that subject to the conditions established by the Inter-American Court, those rights may be restricted in certain circumstances.180 In this respect, the IACHR considers that this position is 171 See above, para. 34. Natural resources are owned collectively, and they can become the property of an individual or a family through labor or inheritance. 172 See above, para. 37. 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124; 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. 174 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 233; 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. 116. 175 UNCERD, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention, Concluding Observations on Suriname (Sixty-fourth session, 2004), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/CO/9, April 28, 2004, para. 11. 176 UNHCR, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding observations on Suriname (Eightieth session, 2004), U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/SUR, May 4, 2004, para. 21. 177 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2001/65 (fifty-ninth session), U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2003/90, January 21, 2003, para. 21. 178 Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 1. Suriname adds that this “assumption does not prejudice the need to demarcate and delineate the alleged territory.” 179 180 Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, pp. 4-5. Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, p. 5. Suriname’s argumentation then focuses on whether the three concrete acts the petitioners complain of (i.e., issuance of individual titles, granting of mining concessions, and establishment of Nature Reserves) constitute violations of the alleged victims’ property rights. These acts are discussed in the sections below.