“For security reason: (i) no unauthorized person would have access to the mining areas (100 ha); (ii) use of the highway as access for hunting and fishing the area of the concession was refused, and there was a sign at the entry; (iii) the indigenous peoples who traditionally came to the reserve could continue to do so in their traditional way, and (iv) the indigenous peoples were never charged for using the highway.” 189. Based on the above, the Court finds that the possible restriction to access certain specific areas where mining exploitation operations were being carried on could have been reasonable, mainly for safety reasons. The Court also observes that, in addition to the 100 ha of exploitation, other adjoining areas were available to the nearby communities, particularly the Lokono community of Alfonsdorp; therefore, for the effects of this case, it does not find that there was a disproportionate restriction in this regard. iii) Monitoring and management of the nature reserves 190. The Court observes that the State has indicated that the indigenous peoples would not be capable of managing the reserve on their own, owing to lack of equipment and management systems, among other reasons234 (supra para. 120). Meanwhile, the representatives and the Commission stated that the protection of nature is compatible with their way of life and these territories should be restored to them. 191. In this regard, the Court finds that, in light of the previously mentioned standards, the monitoring, access and participation in areas of a reserve by the indigenous and tribal peoples is compatible, but it is also reasonable that the State retain the supervision, access and management of areas of general and strategic interest, and for safety reasons, that allow it to exercise its sovereignty, and/or protect the borders of its territory. 192. Therefore, since, in this specific case, the Court has not ruled on the creation and persistence of the nature reserves (supra para. 162), but rather, based on their existence, has analyzed the restrictions imposed, it finds that, for the effects of this case, from the moment the State made its domestic and international commitments (supra para. 176), it should have endeavored to ensure compatibility between the protection of the environment and the collective rights of the indigenous peoples, in order to: (a) ensure access to and use of their ancestral territories for their traditional ways of life in the nature reserves, and (b) provide the means for them to participate effectively in the objectives of the reserves; mainly in their care and conservation, and (c) to participate in the benefits derived from conservation (supra para. 181). 193. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the case of the Galibi Nature Reserve, agreements exist that have permitted access to the reserve, the limited participation of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples in its conservation, and the authorization to receive certain benefits (supra para. 79). However, these agreements have not been formally recorded in order to guarantee them 234 Among these, it argued that: (i) the Kaliña and Lokono peoples have a limited expert capacity to perform (scientific) management tasks in relation to the areas classified by the IUCN as category IV reserves, because these require a special expertise, which they are unable to provide (merits file, folio 589); (ii) the Kaliña and Lokono peoples are undergoing a process of acculturation and are more interested in modern activities than in traditional knowledge. Therefore, they are unable to adapt to changes in nature, such as floods and winds (merits file, folio 589); (iii) they do not possess the capacity to coordinate nature conservation efforts beyond the local level; they have insufficient knowledge to evaluate biological systems within the country as a whole; while, as established by law, the State does have this expertise (merits file, folios 589 and 590), and (iv) the State needs to position Suriname in the wider global nature protection system and discuss with a wide range of stakeholders the global agreements in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention and others (merits file, folio 590). Consequently, under no circumstances will the State leave the supervision of the three nature reserves to the indigenous peoples, despite respecting their rights to secure their livelihood and survival and, indeed, these groups are seen as a major actor in nature protection in Lower Marowijne (merits file, folio 590). 51