3 lands and has refused to recognize indigenous land rights. The petition contends that the State has encroached upon the traditional territory of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples by establishing three Nature Reserves, issuing land titles to non-indigenous persons in Kaliña and Lokono ancestral lands, and by authorizing mining activities in their territories. 10. The petitioners argue that the State has violated Article 3 of the American Convention by failing to recognize the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples and their communities as legal persons under Surinamese law. Specifically, Surinamese law does not recognize indigenous peoples and their communities as legal persons for purposes of applying for and holding land titles. Additionally, the petitioners argue that Suriname has violated the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ right to property protected by Article 21 of the American Convention. They allege that the Kaliña and Lokono have traditionally used and occupied their lands, territories, and natural resources according to their uses and customs. They contend that these traditional methods of occupation and use are a property regime protected by Article 21 of the American Convention, and that Article 21, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 thereof, requires that Suriname adopt special measures to guarantee the individual and collective rights of the Lower Marowijne indigenous peoples to own and control of their traditional lands, territories, and resources. The petitioners maintain that Suriname’s laws do not recognize Kaliña and Lokono property rights and that there is no legislative, administrative or other mechanism that serves to secure their collective rights in law or practice. Therefore, the petitioners argue that the State has failed to recognize, secure, and protect the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ property rights in law and practice and thus violated Article 21 in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention. 11. The petitioners submit that the human right to property under Article 21 encompasses the recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, and that the indigenous peoples’ right to property includes recognition of their right to freely dispose of their natural resources. They also state that, under international law, permissible restrictions on the property rights of indigenous peoples are very limited and under no circumstances should be imposed unilaterally without provisions for consultation and compensation. The petitioners argue against non-consensual subordination of indigenous peoples’ property rights where doing so effectively extinguishes property rights or infringes upon the indigenous peoples’ right to occupy, use and enjoy their lands and territories, and to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. 12. 13. In addition, the petitioners maintain that Suriname’s Constitution provides that natural resources are property of the State and does not recognize the rights of indigenous peoples or their communities over lands, territories, or resources. With respect to domestic law, petitioners allege that the primary legislation regarding State land is the L-Decrees of 1981-1982 from the military era. These decrees provide that, in allocating State-owned land, the rights of indigenous peoples shall be respected, provided this is not contrary to the general interest. The petitioners claim that the decrees distinguish the indigenous peoples’ de facto rights from others’ legal rights based on formal titles issued by the State. They take the position that any restriction on the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples is by definition a violation of Article 21, which requires that property rights be recognized in the law, which is not the case in Suriname. 14. Moreover, the petitioners allege that Suriname has violated the collective property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples by issuing titles to third parties, permitting mining