49 second argument regarding the possibility of recognizing the legal personality of a distinct group rather than that of its individual members. 166. The Court has previously analyzed the right of individual persons to have their juridical personality recognized pursuant to Article 3 of the American Convention.176 Accordingly, the Court has defined it as the right to be legally recognized as a subject of rights and obligations.177 That is, the “right to recognition of personality before the law represents a parameter to determine whether a person is entitled to any given rights and whether such person can enforce such rights”.178 The Court has also declared that a violation of the right to juridical personality entails an absolute failure to recognize or acknowledge the capability of a person to exercise and enjoy said rights and obligations,179 which in turn places the person in a vulnerable position in relation to the State or third parties.180 In particular, the Court has observed that “the State is bound to guarantee to those persons in situations of vulnerability, exclusion and discrimination, the legal and administrative conditions that may secure for them the exercise of such right, pursuant to the principle of equality under the law”.181 The issue at hand in the present case is whether these criteria can be applied to the members of the Saramaka people as a group and not merely as individuals. 167. The Court has previously addressed the right to juridical personality in the context of indigenous communities, and has held that States have a duty to provide the means and general juridical conditions necessary to guarantee that each person enjoys the right to the recognition of his or her juridical personality.182 The question presented in this case is of a different nature. Here the question is whether the lack of recognition of the Saramaka people as a juridical personality makes them ineligible under domestic law to receive communal title to land as a tribal community and to have equal access to judicial protection of their property rights. The individual right to have each member’s juridical personality recognized by the State is not in question. In Suriname, all persons, whether they are individual Saramaka members or not, are recognized the right to own property and to seek judicial protection against any alleged violation of that individual right.183 Yet, the State does not recognize the Saramaka people as a juridical entity capable of using and enjoying communal property as a tribal group. Furthermore, the State does not recognize the Saramaka people as a juridical entity capable of seeking equal access to judicial protection against any alleged violation of their communal property rights. 176 This right is also recognized in other international instruments. Cf., inter alia, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 16; American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article XVII, and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 5. 177 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179; Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 188, and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 177. Cf. also UNHRC, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations on Gabon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/31/ADD.4, November 18, 1996, para. 54. 178 Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 188. 179 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 177, para. 179; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 120, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 188. 180 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 177, para. 179, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 188. 181 Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 189. 182 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 189. 183 Cf. Constitution of Suriname, Article 41, supra note 119, and Article 1386 of Civil Code of Suriname (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 4, folios 51).