2 they claim to use is highly varied, and that they do not constitute recognized indigenous groups that can exert rights over lands and territories. The State adds that the granting of private titles and mining concession does not interfere with any indigenous rights the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples might have, and that these are consistent with Inter-American jurisprudence regarding permissible interferences with the right to property. Suriname also claims that it cannot be held liable for alleged violations of the American Convention for acts that pre-dated its ratification of that instrument in 1987, such as establishment of the Nature Reserves, one of which dates back to 1966. It also argues that the establishment of the Nature Reserves is also consistent with inter-American case law regarding permissible interferences with the rights to property protected by Article 21. In Report N° 76/07, approved on October 15, 2007 during its 130 Period of Sessions, the IACHR declared the petition admissible with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 3, 21 and 25 of the American Convention (in connection with Articles 1 and 2 thereof), and proceeded to examine the merits of the petition. 4. In this Report, after analyzing the evidence and arguments submitted by the petitioners and the State, the Inter-American Commission finds that Suriname has violated Articles 3, 21, and 25, in connection with Articles 1 and 2, of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples. 5. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR 6. As mentioned above, in Admissibility Report No. 76/07 the IACHR found that the petition in this case was admissible, as it alleged facts that could constitute violations of rights protected by the American Convention. Subsequent to the admissibility report, the petitioners submitted information to the IACHR on January 11, 2008, May 28, 2008, October 29, 2008, December 22, 2010, March 27, 2012 and February 1, 2013. Suriname also provided information to the IACHR on March 22, 2008 and September 12, 2008, May 16, 2011 and March 27, 2012. These Communications were duly transmitted to the other party. 7. On March 27, 2012, during its 144 Period of Sessions, the IACHR held a hearing regarding this case. The Inter-American Commission received information from petitioner Richard Pané, petitioners’ counsel Fergus MacKay, and Kenneth J. Amoksi, representative of the State of Suriname. The petitioners also presented and provided copies of maps of the Lower Marowijne River area. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 8. The petitioners allege human rights violations associated with the State’s failure to recognize the property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples over their ancestral territories along and near the Lower Marowijne River. They assert that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples are the indigenous inhabitants of the Lower Marowijne River area, and that they have ancestral rights over their lands, territories and resources recognized under international law and the standards set by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“Inter-American Court”). 9. The petitioners submit that the State is responsible for violations of Articles 3, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with its Articles 1 and 2, to the detriment of the Lower Marowijne Peoples. In addition to their lack of recognition under Surinamese law, petitioners principally allege that under Surinamese law the State owns and controls indigenous