adopted the Santigron Declaration in which they demanded participation in the plans for, and recognition of the property rights over, their territory.69 D.2 Steps taken following the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (November 12, 1987) 62. As a result of the ending of the internal conflict in Suriname in 1992 by the Lelydorp Peace Accord, the Kaliña and Lokono peoples began to return to their territories and to reconstruct their communities. At the same time, they tried to recover the land that the State had granted to third parties. In this context, Tjang A. Sjin, owner of a vacation home located in the community of Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha), filed a complaint in the domestic sphere against Lokono Captain Erick Zaalman because he and the residents of the communities had prevented Tjang A. Sjin from rebuilding his house, which had been destroyed during the internal conflict. This case was known as Tjang A Sjin v. Zaalman and Others.70 63. In this regard, in 1998, in protest for the complaint filed against Captain Zaalman, members of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, together with indigenous peoples from other regions of Suriname, held a vigil in front of the Supreme Court of Justice of Suriname in Paramaribo for several days.71 However, the judgment delivered by the Cantonal Court of the First Canton of Paramaribo on May 21, 1998, established that the indigenous community should respect the right to property of Tjang A. Sjin, because he was the legitimate owner of the land according to the respective property title. The Court referred to this domestic judicial proceeding in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname.72 64. On December 24, 2002, the residents of the community of Pierrekondre filed a complaint against the State seeking that the judge revoke a sand mining concession that had been granted on land on which the residents of the indigenous community had a logging license. This case was known as Celientje Martina Joeroeja-Koewie and Others v. Suriname & Suriname Stone & Industries N.V. The State’s defense counsel indicated that the argument that the residents of the community had inhabited the disputed territory for centuries was grossly exaggerated; that domestic law did not establish recognition of ancestral territories, and that the area where the petitioners resided had not been demarcated. On July 24, 2003, the Cantonal Court of the First Canton of Paramaribo handed down judgment denying the application because the members of the indigenous community had no legal standing as a collective entity and, therefore, lacked competence to request the cancellation of the mining concession.73 65. Furthermore, on January 31, 2003, March 22, 2004, and September 25, 2005, the captains of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples presented formal petitions to the President of Suriname, Ronald Venetiaan, under the provisions of article 22 of the 1987 Constitution.74 In these petitions, the captains requested the recognition of the right to their ancestral territories; 69 Cf. Affidavit made by Loreen Jubitana on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 428) 70 Cf. Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folios 445 and 446). 71 Cf. Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 446) and Affidavit made by Stuart Kirsh on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 350). 72 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 180; Affidavit made by Mariska Muskiet on April 30, 2007 (merits file, folio 455), and Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 446). 73 Cf. Judgment of July 24, 2003, handed down by the Cantonal Court, First Canton, Paramaribo, in the case of Celientje Martina Joeroeja-Koewie and Others v. Suriname & Suriname Stone & Industries N.V (evidence file, folios 2900 to 2903), and Affidavit made by Mariska Muskiet on April 30, 2007 (merits file, folios 452 and 453). 74 Article 22 of the 1987 Constitution establishes the following: “1. Everyone has the right to submit written petitions to the competent authority. 2. The law regulates the procedure for handling them” (evidence file, folio 294). 20