33 accorded to holders of individual real title or other registered property rights recognized and issued by the State. This limitation on the recognition of the legal right of the members of the Saramaka people to fully enjoy the territory they have traditionally owned and occupied is incompatible with the State’s obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to give legal effect to the rights recognized under Article 21 of such instrument. C.4.c) The Mining Decree of 1986 111. Similarly, the Mining Decree referred to by the State also fails to give domestic legal effect to the rights to property that the members of the Saramaka people have as a result of their communal property system. The Mining Decree only recognizes a right to compensation to rightful claimants and third parties with an interest on land on which a mining right is granted.106 Said decree defines rightful “claimants” as persons “who own the land in ownership or have a real property or personal property right on private land.”107 Third parties are defined as “those whose interest [arises] from a personal property right on private land[…].”108 Private land, in turn, is defined in Article 46 of the Mining Decree as land issued under personal or real property titles.109 Therefore, to qualify as a rightful “claimant” or a “third party” pursuant to Articles 47-48 of the Mining Decree, the persons in question must hold some form of registered right or title issued by the State. Thus, the Mining Decree, rather than give effect to the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people in conformity with their communal property system, emphasizes the need for them to obtain title to their traditionally owned territory in order to be able to pursue a claim for compensation (infra para. 183). C.4.d) The Forest Management Act of 1992 112. The State also made reference to the 1992 Forest Management Act as an example of domestic legislation that gives legal effect to the right of the members of the Saramaka people to the use and enjoyment of property in conformity with their communal system. Suriname has asserted that the grant of permits called “community forests”, which may be established under its 1992 Forest Management Act, could provide effective recognition of the property rights of the members of the Saramaka tribe. However, the evidence before the Court contradicts this assertion. 113. Although questions arise as to whether the State has made any effort to inform the members of indigenous and tribal peoples about the possibility of obtaining these so-called “community forests,”110 the real problem is that such community forests are not issued as a matter of right, but at the sole discretion of the Minister in charge of forest management and subject to any conditions the Minister may impose.111 The Court observes that it does not have evidence that demonstrates the grant of “community forests” permits to any member of the Saramaka community.112 Notwithstanding this absence, the Court considers 106 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986, containing general rules for exploration and exploitation of minerals (Mining Decree), Articles 47 and 48 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 8, folio 144). 107 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986, supra note 106, Article 46(b). 108 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986, supra note 106, Article 46(c). 109 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986, supra note 106, Article 46(a). 110 Cf. Article 41(2) of the Forest Management Act, September 18, 1992 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 6, folio 75). Cf. also Testimony of Captain Cesar Adjako, supra note 68 (transcription of public hearing, p. 19), and Testimony of Rene Somopawiro during the public hearing at the Court held on May 9 and 10, 2007 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 40 and 53). 111 Cf. Testimony of Rene Somopawiro, supra note 110 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 39 and 42). 112 Cf. Testimony of Captain Cesar Adjako, supra note 68 (transcription of public hearing, pp. 18-20), and Testimony of Rene Somopawiro, supra note 110 (transcription of public hearing, p. 49).