174. In this regard, in her expert opinion, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, indicated to the Court that: “International environmental law and international human rights law should not be considered separate, but rather interrelated and complementary, bodies of law. Indeed, the States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have incorporated respect for the related international rights and obligations into their decision on protected areas in relation to indigenous peoples. […] The CBD, and its authorized interpretation by the Conference of the Parties, defends fully the rights of the indigenous peoples in relation to the protected areas and requires that these are established and managed in full compliance with the State’s international obligations. This permits the application of the whole range of the State’s human rights obligations as defined by the American Convention on Human Rights and established in the UN Declaration. It is also the consensus reflected in the main international policy norms and best practice. […] The [UN] Rapporteur has adhered to these same basic principles affirmed by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. […].”220 175. Meanwhile, expert witness Jeremie Gilbert testified before the Court concerning the mechanisms for weighing the rights in play in this type of case, and indicated that: [Regarding the criterion of necessity,] the indigenous peoples are part of the natural protection; there is no need to expel the indigenous peoples in the name of protecting nature. […] Regarding their legitimacy, the protection of nature is legitimate, but based on [what has been said,] the indigenous peoples are part of the protection of nature, so there is no legitimate reason to eliminate these peoples who have been part of such resources. [Therefore], if we apply the law strictly, we can state that, in this situation, [States] are in error when they use public interest as justification.”221 176. In addition, the Court takes note that the State has indicated its commitment to protecting the environment and explicitly emphasized its “obligations arising from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [1992],222 and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands [1971].”223 Also, the preamble to the 1998 Nature Protection Order (that amended the orders creating the Wia Wia and Wane Kreek Nature Reserves) expressly mentioned the State’s commitment to the conservation and sustainable development of tropical forests, “as a result of Suriname’s accession to several international conventions, such as: the World Heritage Convention [1972],224 the Convention on Biological Diversity [1992], and the United Nations to Resolution 1.53 on Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Montreal, in October 1996. 220 Expert opinion provided by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz during the public hearing held on February 3 and 4, 2015 (transcript of the public hearing, p. 51). 221 Testimony of expert witness Jeremie Gilbert during the public hearing held in this case (transcript of the public hearing, pp.51 and 52). 222 On May 22, 1992, the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted during the Conference of Nairobi, organized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The Convention, which entered into force on December 29, 1993, represented a significant step towards the conservation of biological diversity. Suriname ratified the Convention on January 12, 1996. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml. 223 Ramsar Convention, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, signed at Ramsar, Iran, on January 18, 1971, which entered into force on December 21, 1975, and was ratified by Suriname on November 22, 1985. 224 The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted on November 16, 1972, during the General Conference of UNESCO held in Paris, from October 17 to November 21. The main characteristic of this Convention is that it assembles in one document the concepts of nature conservation and preservation of the cultural heritage. The Convention recognizes the way in which people interact with nature and the necessary principles to ensure the balance between both of them. Suriname acceded to the Convention on October 23, 1997. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/. 47