whether the territories in which these Maroon settlements are located are included in the claims of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples. C. The indigenous peoples under the Suriname legal system 50. It is an undisputed fact that the laws of Suriname do not recognize the possibility that the indigenous peoples may be constituted as legal persons and, consequently, they lack standing to hold collective property titles. In this regard, during the public hearing in this case, the State asserted that “the laws of Suriname only grant [legal personality] to natural and legal persons, and not […] to the indigenous and tribal peoples.” This was reaffirmed by the indigenous representatives to the National Assembly of Suriname during the on-site procedure in this case. 51. In addition, the Court notes that, under the 1992 Lelydorp Peace Accord, the State undertook to establish legal mechanisms to provide protection to the lands of the indigenous and tribal peoples. In this regard, article 10 of the Accord established, among other matters, that “[t]he Government shall endeavor that legal mechanisms be created under which citizens who live and reside in tribal settlements will be able to secure a real title to land requested by them in their areas of residence [woongebieden]. 2. The demarcation and size of the respective residential areas, referred to in the first paragraph, shall be determined on the basis of a study carried out with respect thereto by the Council for the Development of the Interior […].” However, the State has not taken any measure to implement this provision.59 52. This situation was analyzed by the Court previously in the case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, in which it established as a proven fact that “[e]ven though the individual members of the indigenous and tribal communities are recognized as persons in the Suriname Constitution, the laws of the State do not recognize these communities as legal entities. Also, domestic law does not establish collective property rights.”60 53. Also, in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, the Court concluded that “the State’s legal framework merely grants the members of the Saramaka people a privilege to use the land, which does not guarantee their right to control and own their territory without any type of outside interference.”61 54. In addition, on September 27, 2013, a meeting was held between State authorities and representatives of indigenous and Maroon communities during which three commissions were created in order to develop legislation on traditional authorities, awareness-raising campaigns, and prior and informed consultation. 55. On January 6, 2014, the State hired a team of consultants to draft a bill on traditional authorities.62 The document of June 3, 2014, entitled “Draft Bill on Traditional Authorities” established, among other matters, that a Minister responsible for matters relating to traditional authorities would appoint a group of dignitaries to serve as intermediaries between the Government and the indigenous and/or Maroon communities and to be responsible for keeping peace and order in the communities. To this end, these intermediaries would work a normal 59 Article 10 (right to land) of the Lelydorp Accord. Cf. Affidavit made by Loreen Jubitana on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folios 431 and 432). 60 Case of the Moiwana Community, supra, para. 86.5. 61 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 115. 62 Cf. Affidavit made by Loreen Jubitana on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 433), and Professional services contract dated January 6, 2014 (evidence file, folio 2997). 18