48 becomes illusory, the limitation cannot be considered proportionate.”266 The African Commission considered that “even if the Game Reserve was a legitimate aim and served a public need, it could have been accomplished by alternative means proportionate to the need.”267 It thus concluded that the State of Kenya had “not only denied the Endorois community all legal rights in their ancestral land, rendering their property rights essentially illusory, but in the name of creating a Game Reserve and the subsequent eviction of the Endorois community from their own land, the Respondent State has violated the very essence of the right itself, and cannot justify such an interference with reference to ‘the general interest of the community’ or a ‘public need.’”268 142. The Inter-American Commission considers that protection of the rights of indigenous peoples is consistent with respect for the environment, including in the context of protected areas, provided appropriate safeguards and guarantees are put in place and enforced, as discussed below. (ii) The Wia Wia Nature Reserve 143. The Wia Wia Reserve was established 1966, pursuant to the 1954 Nature Protection Act. It is undisputed that this Act did not provide for respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.269 It is likewise undisputed that the affected Kaliña and Lokono villages living in the area were not consulted before it was established, and were not consulted at the time of Suriname’s accession to the American Convention or at anytime thereafter. 144. Although Suriname has not undertaken acts to consult with indigenous peoples regarding the Wia Wia Nature Reserve, it contends that it has “no impact whatsoever on the traditional way of life” of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples.270 The petitioners dispute this, arguing that traditional indigenous subsistence practices are prohibited and criminalized inside the Wia Wia Reserve.271 Suriname also adds that the State’s stewardship in environmental protection is necessary, and that the petitioners lack expertise and authority to ensure that protected areas are adequately respected.272 The petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the traditional activities of 266 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 276/2003 – Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, November 2009, para. 215. 267 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 276/2003 – Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, November 2009, para. 215. 268 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 276/2003 – Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, November 2009, para. 215. 269 See Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, p. 16. In fact, there is consensus between the parties that all land rights in Suriname must derive from a concession awarded by the State. In this context, the indigenous and tribal peoples who cannot show a title granted by the State are regarded by the latter as occupants with permission to inhabit state lands, but whose interests are subordinate to the “general interest.” Titles are only granted to individuals, unless a community registers itself as a legal entity, such as a foundation. 270 Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 5. 271 Submission of petitioners, May 29, 2008, para. 44. 272 Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, pp. 16-17.