25 differ from other Saramakas who live within the traditional territory and in accordance with Saramaka customs does not affect the distinctiveness of this tribal group nor its communal use and enjoyment of their property.”146 Moreover, according to inter-American jurisprudence, the provisions of the American Convention should be interpreted and applied in the context of developments in the field of international human rights law since those instruments were first composed, and with due regard to other relevant rules of international law.147 The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for instance, states that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.”148 In addition, as the Inter-American Court has pointed out, Suriname has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognize the right to self-determination of peoples, and the interpretation of Article 21 of the American Convention should be consistent with these instruments.149 Based on all the foregoing, the IACHR considers that even if some members of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples do not retain the traditions of the indigenous peoples as such, that does not deprive the indigenous people of the rights protected by the American Convention. 146 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No. 172, para. 164. The Court explained this in the context of the Saramaka, who are a tribal people. Nonetheless, in the same decision, the Court also explained that indigenous and tribal peoples enjoy protections under international law: “This Court has previously held, based on Article 1(1) of the Convention, that members of indigenous and tribal communities require special measures that guarantee the full exercise of their rights, particularly with regards to their enjoyment of property rights, in order to safeguard their physical and cultural survival.” Id., para. 85. See also, IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 56/09, December 30, 2009, paras. 37-38. 147 See I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Ser. A No. 10, para. 37; I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Ser. A No. 16 (1999), para. 114 (endorsing an interpretation of international human rights instruments that takes into account developments of the corpus juris gentium of international human rights law over time and in present-day conditions). 148 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res. 61/295 annex, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 2 October 2007, Article 5. Suriname voted in favor of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The IACHR has also stated that, for instance, ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries “provide evidence of contemporary international opinion concerning matters relating to indigenous peoples …”. Report No. 40/04, Merits, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District, Belize, para. 118, n. 123. 149 I/A Court H.R., Saramaka People. v. Suriname Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No. 172, para. 93 (“Suriname’s domestic legislation does not recognize a right to communal property of members of its tribal communities, and it has not ratified ILO Convention 169. Nevertheless, Suriname has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which is the body of independent experts that supervises State parties’ implementation of the ICESCR, has interpreted common Article 1 of said instruments as being applicable to indigenous peoples. Accordingly, by virtue of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination recognized under said Article 1, they may “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”, and may “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources” so as not to be “deprived of [their] own means of subsistence”. Pursuant to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, this Court may not interpret the provisions of Article 21 of the American Convention in a manner that restricts its enjoyment and exercise to a lesser degree than what is recognized in said covenants.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court also cited the Human Rights Committee, which has stated that under Article 27 of the ICCPR, “minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture[, which] may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with territory and use of its resources. This may particularly be true of members of indigenous communities constituting a minority.” I/A Court H.R., Saramaka People. v. Suriname Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No. 172, para. 94.