38 that in any event any affectation the mining activities may be causing is trivial and de minimis, and so a legitimate interference with the alleged property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples. The IACHR has already determined (see paragraph 76) that the effects of the granting of the mining concession have continued after 1987, and that it therefore has jurisdiction ratione temporis over potential violations arising from that act. Suriname does not dispute that it has not adopted domestic legislation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to consultation and consent regarding projects or activities that affect their territories. (i) The Right to Consultation The Inter-American Court and the IACHR have elaborated on the content and scope of Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with the right of indigenous peoples to use and enjoy their territory, by interpreting Article 21 progressively, in a way to permit the enjoyment and exercise of the rights recognized by the State in any other relevant treaties ratified by the State, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.213 Through developments in regulations and case law, international law has given specific content to the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted regarding situations that may affect their territory, and the corresponding duty of States to engage in prior consultations. 118. 119. The right to free, prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples is derived from the right to self-determination, pursuant to which indigenous peoples may “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” and “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources” so as to not be “deprived of [their] own means of subsistence.”214 120. In this regard, the IACHR has recalled the duty of States to consult indigenous peoples regarding any activity or economic project that affects their lands and natural resources, including cases in which the State seeks to exploit mineral resources in indigenous lands. The right to consultation comprises the positive duty of States to provide suitable and effective mechanisms to seek to obtain prior, free, and informed consent in accordance with the customs and traditions of the indigenous peoples before undertaking activities that may adversely affect their interests or their rights to their lands, territory or natural resources.215 213 Suriname has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Suriname ratified both on March 28, 1977. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 99U.N.T.S. 171, Can T.S. 1976 No. 47, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered in force 23 March 1976), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered into force 3 January 1976). The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 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. Cf. UNCESCR, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations on Russian Federation (Thirty-first session), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.94, December 12, 2003, para. 11, in which the Committee expressed concern for the “precarious situation of indigenous communities in the State party, affecting their right to self-determination under article 1 of the Covenant.” Pursuant to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, the IACHR 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. 214 I/A Court H.R., Saramaka People. v. Suriname Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No., para. 93. 215 See inter alia IACHR, Report on Ecuador 1997 Conclusions of Chapter IX. Human Rights issues of special relevance to the indigenous inhabitants of the country and Conclusions of Chapter VIII; IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, Chapter X, 1999. Recommendation No. 4.; IACHR, Final Merits Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), Annual Report of the IACHR 2002, para. 140; IACHR, Final Merits Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053. Maya Continues…