49 the Kaliña and Lokono in the Reserve have never represented a threat to the environment, and that their traditions in fact promote respect for the environment and its subsistence.273 145. The IACHR considers that Suriname has not demonstrated that it considered alternative, less intrusive mechanisms or arrangements that take into account the rights of indigenous peoples in connection with the establishment, maintenance and management of the Wia Wia Nature Reserve. 146. For the foregoing reasons, the IACHR concludes that Suriname has violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples in connection with the continuing effects of the establishment and management of the Wia Wia Nature Reserve. (iii) The Galibi Nature Reserve The Galibi Nature Reserve was established 1969, also pursuant to the 1954 Nature Protection Act. The affected Kaliña and Lokono villages living in the area were not consulted when the Reserve was initially established. However, Suriname alleges that some “consultations” have been undertaken subsequent to its creation, primarily with the establishment of the Consultation Commission of the Galibi Reserve. 147. 148. In this respect, the Inter-American Court has stated that “it is the obligation of the State– and not of the indigenous peoples– to prove that all aspects of the right to prior consultation were effectively guaranteed” in a given case.274 Despite the establishment of the Consultation Commission of the Galibi Reserve in the late 1990s, the property rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands remains unrecognized. There are contradicting accounts of the purported “arrangement” agreed with the indigenous inhabitants at the time,275 but it is undisputed that the Reserve was created pursuant to the 1954 Nature Protection Act, which did not provide for respect of the rights of indigenous peoples. Irrespective of the alleged “consultations” carried out during the early years of the Galibi Reserve, the IACHR considers that Suriname has not complied with other important safeguards established by Inter-American jurisprudence. Firstly, it is undisputed that the property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples over their ancestral lands are subordinate to the legal status of the Galibi Reserve. In addition, the State has not provided evidence that an environmental or social impact assessment has been conducted. Similarly, the State has not shown that the current legal framework governing the existence of the Reserve is the only method to achieve the conservationist objectives of the Reserve, 149. 273 Annex 6. Petition, para. 89. 274 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 179. 275 For instance, petitioners claim that this was no true consultation and that “the villagers were not involved in the decision-making process. They were confronted with the [Galibi] reserve as a fait accompli. . . .” Annex 6. Petition, para. 83. The State, for its part, first claimed that an arrangement was reached with the local indigenous communities in 1985, and then stated that this arrangement had been reached in 1969. See Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 5; Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, p. 9. Dr. Stuart Kirsch stated that the “current Captains of Galibi believe that the Dutch colonial administration took advantage of the fact that the Kaliña were unfamiliar with their rights” and “regard the process through which the Galibi Nature Reserve was established as fraudulent and therefore a violation of their human rights.” Annex 8. Submission of petitioners, December 28, 2008, Expert Report of Stuart Kirsch, p. 6.