26 In addition, the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have established that indigenous peoples, as collective subjects distinguishable from their individual members, are rights holders recognized by the American Convention. In that respect, in its recent judgment in Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court stated that ”international legislation concerning indigenous or tribal communities and peoples recognizes their rights as collective subjects of International Law and not only as individuals.“150 In addition, the Court stated that ”[g]iven that indigenous or tribal communities and peoples, united by their particular ways of life and identity, exercise certain rights recognized by the Convention on a collective basis, the Court points out that the legal considerations expressed or issued in this Judgment should be understood from that collective perspective.“151 In that sense, and as in previous cases,152 the IACHR will analyze the present case from a collective perspective. 81. 82. The following sections examine what those collective rights are, and whether they have been violated by the State of Suriname. C. The Right to Juridical Personality 83. Article 3 of the American Convention provides that “[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.” The petitioners claim that Surinamese law does not recognize the Lower Marowijne indigenous peoples and their communities as legal persons, and that this violates Article 3 of the Convention. The State, in turn, contends that it, like many other countries, is still in the process of recognizing in their domestic legislation the rights of indigenous peoples.153 84. The Inter-American Court has previously analyzed the right to juridical personality in the context of indigenous communities, and has held that the State has an obligation to provide the general juridical conditions necessary to guarantee that each person enjoys the right to the recognition of his or her juridical personality.154 The Court has also examined Article 3 in the collective context, precisely with respect to Suriname. In Saramaka v. Suriname, the Court explained that Surinamese law does not recognize collective tribal peoples as juridical entities capable of 150 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 231. 151 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 231. 152 See, e.g., IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Community Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, June 4, 1998; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay, March 17, 2003; Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community of the District of Toledo v. Belize, October 12, 2004; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, February 2005; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of the Saramaka People vs. Suriname, June 23, 2006; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of Yákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, July 3, 2009; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku and its members v. Ecuador, April 26, 2010. 153 At the admissibility stage, Suriname also argued that Article 1386 of its Civil Code provides adequate and effective remedies against the violations alleged by the petitioners. See Admissibility Report, paras. 51-59. 154 See, e.g., I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179; Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 188.