14 the Court has stated in its jurisprudence, legislative, administrative, and other measures implemented by the State pursuant to the Court’s orders, including the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of lands, must be carried out in a way that recognizes the culture, usages, customs, and beliefs of that Community.26 25. Furthermore, all of these measures must be planned and implemented “with the participation and informed consent of the victims as expressed through their representatives, the members of the other Cottica N’djuka villages, and the neighboring indigenous communities, including the community of Alfonsdorp.” 27 The Court notes that there is strong disagreement between the parties regarding the level of the participation that the Moiwana Community has had in the steps taken thus far in order to comply with this obligation. Additionally, the representatives have expressed unease as to how the Moiwana Community will legally be able to hold and exercise property rights. Therefore, the Court reminds the State that “the right to have their juridical personality recognized […] is one of the special measures owed to indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they are able to use and enjoy their territor[ies] in accordance with their own traditions. This is a natural consequence of the recognition of the right of members of indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights in a communal manner.” 28 The Court notes that the Final Report of the National Commission indicates that indigenous and maroon tribes in Suriname must have legal status in order to exercise a collective property right. 29 Additionally, the Court reminds the State that the fact that some individual members of the Moiwana Community may have expressed interest in individual property rights does not affect the distinctiveness of the Community nor its communal use and enjoyment of land.30 26. Moreover, the Court reminds the State that “[u]ntil the Moiwana [C]ommunity members’ right to property with respect to their traditional territories is secured, [it] shall refrain from actions […] that would affect the existence, value, use[,] or enjoyment of the property located in the geographical area where the Moiwana 26 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 120; and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 87. Additionally, the Court reminds the State that “the members of indigenous peoples who have unwillingly left their traditional lands […] maintain property rights [to those lands] even though they lack legal title, unless the lands have been lawfully transferred to third parties in good faith; […] when those lands have been lawfully transferred to innocent third parties, [indigenous peoples] are entitled to restitution thereof or to […] other lands of equal extension and quality.” Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, para. 128. The Court considers that this holding is applicable to the Moiwana Community, a maroon, tribal people. 27 Case of Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 210. 28 Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 172; see also Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149. 29 Cf. “Final Report of the Commission Land Rights” (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome II, folio 307). 30 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 28, para. 164.