51 154. In addition, there is evidence of significant environmental damage inside the Wane Kreek Reserve as a consequence of the extractive activities conducted therein. No environmental or social impact assessment was conducted by the State, but ex post assessments have shown significant environmental affectation. Specifically, as has been proven (see paragraph 68), “considerable damage has already been done to Wane 1 and 2 by bauxite mining (…) [The mining company recommends] to conclude mining and exploration activities of the four Wane Hills as soon as possible, restore disturbed areas to an acceptable state, and withdraw from the [Wane Kreek Nature Reserve].”282 The Commission notes the inherent inconsistency in allowing mining activities inside a purportedly protected natural reserve. This type of activity inside ancestral indigenous lands is precisely the type of activity that the Inter-American Court has stated should be subject to consultations and consent of the affected indigenous peoples. In Saramaka, the Court stated that “regarding large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact within Saramaka territory, the State has a duty, not only to consult with the Saramaka, but also to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions.”283 No consultation or consent of this type was conducted or obtained in connection with the authorization of bauxite mining operations inside the Wane Kreek Reserve. 155. For the foregoing reasons, the Inter-American Commission considers that Suriname has violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples in connection with the continuing effects of the establishment and management of the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, and the authorization of mining activities therein. 156. E. The Right to Judicial Protection 157. Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that: 282 283 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and Submission of the petitioners, December 22, 2010, SRK Consulting Environmental Sensitivity Analysis, pp. iv, 20-21. 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. 134.