24 B. The Kaliña and Lokono as Indigenous Peoples 77. The State does not challenge that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples are indigenous peoples; in fact it refers to them as the “Lower Marowijne Indigenous People” and states that they are “assumed to have [certain] right[s] under international law.”139 Rather, Suriname claims that (i) the Kailña and Lokono Peoples are not a homogenous group insofar as the nature, scope and intensity of their relationship with the land is highly varied; and (ii) some members of six of the eight villages included in the petition have been integrated with the non-indigenous population, and their social, economic and cultural activities cannot be distinguished from those of the nonindigenous population.140 78. As mentioned above, the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples and their members are indigenous peoples of the Lower Marowijne River in Suriname. The petitioners have presented anthropological information, uncontested by the State, reflecting that their ancestors have inhabited their territory for thousands of years. They have their own economic, social, political and cultural characteristics and traditions, which they preserve to this day, as well as their own customary laws.141 Like many indigenous peoples of the Americas, they have a special, allencompassing relationship with their land and territory in terms of spiritual and cultural connection, as well as physical sustenance, since they derive most of their food from hunting, fishing and gathering the flora and fauna found in their territories.142 The State does not deny the existence of this relationship with their land.143 Additionally, as has been proven, the members of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples self-identify as indigenous peoples.144 79. The Inter-American Court has stated that “[t]he identification of [an indigenous community or people], from its name to its membership, is a social and historical fact that is part of its autonomy. This has been the Court’s criterion in similar situations.”145 Based on this and earlier jurisprudence, the IACHR considers that the fact that the eight Kaliña and Lokono villages subject of this case may be heterogeneous in their relationship with the land, and that some of their members may not have the same social, economic and cultural characteristics as the rest of their communities, does not neglect that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples are indigenous peoples, and therefore does not affect their rights under the American Convention. 80. Suriname’s second argument in this respect is that some members of the alleged victims have been integrated with the non-indigenous population and their social and cultural activities cannot be distinguished from those of the non-indigenous population. In the context of Suriname, the Inter-American Court has explained that “[t]he fact that some individual members of the Saramaka people may live outside of the traditional Saramaka territory and in a way that may 139 Suriname’s Submission, March 22, 2008, p. 1. 140 Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 2. 141 See Annex 6. Petition, paras. 40-49; see also Annex 8. Expert Report of Dr. Stuart Kirsch, received on December 22, 142 See Annex 6. Petition, paras. 43-47. 143 But see discussion at Section V.C.2.a, below. 2010. 144 Annex 6. Petition, para. 1, and Annex 7. Annex A to the Petition, Power of Attorney Declaration (“We further declare that we are the traditional authorities of the indigenous communities and peoples of the Lower Marowijne River. . . .”). 145 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 37.