4 operations, and establishing three Nature Reserves (Wia Wia, Galibi, and Wane Kreek2) in the traditional territory of the Kaliña and Lokono. The petitioners allege that Kaliña and Lokono property has been expropriated and the indigenous rights thereto extinguished under domestic laws without consultation, consent, due process or compensation. The petitioners argue that Suriname has systematically violated the legal requirement that indigenous peoples’ consent be obtained in relation to activities that may affect their rights to their lands, territories, and resources. They add that the lack of recognition of their rights in the law and the authorization of these activities has affected their ability to exercise their traditional lifestyle, and many of the younger members of their communities are losing their traditions. The petitioners argue that, although some of these acts and omissions took place before Suriname acceded to the American Convention in 1987, it can be held liable for the continuous effects of the establishment of the Nature Reserves, the issuance of land titles, and the granting of mining concession and authorization of mining activities. Additionally, the petitioners claim that an important part of the mining activities were authorized years after Suriname’s accession to the American Convention, and that some land titles were also issued after accession. 15. 16. The petitioners further claim that the State has violated Article 25 of the American Convention by failing to provide adequate and effective judicial remedies for violations of human rights. They assert that the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have confirmed that judicial protection and domestic remedies are unavailable in Suriname for the protection of indigenous and tribal peoples’ human rights. 17. The petitioners lastly claim that the State is responsible for the violation of human rights protected under Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, as a result of its failure to give domestic legal effect to the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ property rights. Regarding Article 1, the petitioners argue the State has an affirmative duty to remove impediments to the enjoyment of rights protected by the American Convention. The petitioners assert that Suriname has failed to comply with these obligations with regard to the rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, since Surinamese legislation pertaining to land and natural resource rights not only fails to recognize and give effect to the victims’ rights, but it also places discriminatory conditions and limitations on these rights that negate their exercise and privilege the interests of the State and non-indigenous persons. 18. As for Article 2, the petitioners contend that the American Convention imposes a specific and affirmative duty on States to adopt or amend domestic legislation and other measures to give full effect to the rights recognized in the American Convention. They claim that Suriname has failed to adopt any legislative measures securing indigenous peoples’ property and other rights since it acceded to the American Convention. The petitioners additionally contend that the State has similarly failed to amend existing legislation that conflicts with and negates the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ rights. As a result, the petitioners allege that Suriname is responsible for the violation of both Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention in relation to the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ rights to own, use and enjoy their traditional lands, territories and natural resources, as well as their right to cultural integrity, juridical personality, respect for their members’ moral and mental integrity, and access to adequate and effective judicial remedies to enforce their rights. 19. Subsequent to the report on admissibility, the petitioners have alleged that the State’s failure to provide details regarding the precise dates when titles were issued to non2 Also spelled “Creek.”