B.3 Nature reserves in the traditional territory 161. Regarding the nature reserves in the territory that is allegedly traditional, the Court observes that the arguments are related, on the one hand, to the creation of the reserves and the absence of consultation regarding their establishment and their perpetuation and, on the other hand, to certain restrictions for the Kaliña and Lokono peoples within the reserves. Accordingly, the Court will now delimit its jurisdiction. 162. In relation to the creation of the nature reserves of Wia Wia (1966), Galibi (1969) and Wane Kreek (1986), the Court reiterates that it will not rule with regard to their establishment and other facts that occurred prior to the acceptance of its jurisdiction. However, it will rule on “new facts” that have taken place following the date on which Suriname accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, “as well as with regard to violations that, although they started prior to that date, have continued or remained following it”;208 in other words, the alleged persistence of the reserves and their negative impact. B.3.1 The alleged persistence of the nature reserve and the claims 163. The Court has indicated that, together, the three nature reserves cover around 59,800 ha of the 133,945 ha claimed in this case, and this represents approximately 45% of the total territory claimed by the Kaliña and Lokono peoples (supra para. 71). 164. The Court has established that the relationship with the land and the natural resources that the indigenous and tribal peoples have used traditionally, and which are necessary for their physical and cultural survival, as well as for the development and continuation of their world vision, must be protected under Article 21 of the Convention. The purpose of this protection is to ensure that the indigenous and tribal peoples may continue to enjoy their traditional way of life and that their cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and distinctive traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected by the States.209 Hence, the indigenous peoples are entitled to the natural resources that they have traditionally used within their territory because, without them, their economic, social and cultural survival are at risk. 210 165. In addition, the Court has examined, in light of its case law, the right to claim collective lands that are in the hands of private individuals or subject to State interests. In this regard, it has indicated that the State must assess whether the restrictions in force in the traditional territory comply with the requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality and due purpose (supra, para. 155). Thus, for example, in the case of the Xákmok Kásek, the Court established that: “[…] the State must adopt the necessary measures to ensure that [its domestic law concerning a protected area] does not represent an obstacle to the return of the traditional lands to the members of the Community.”211 It should be noted that, in that case, the protected area was established at a time when the Court had jurisdiction. 208 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 27, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous Community of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous Community of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 30. 209 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 124, 135 and 137, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 167. 210 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 135 and 137, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, paras. 165 to 167 and 172. 211 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, para. 313. 44