35 accordance with Article 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 2 and 1(1) of such instrument. 117. The Court must now determine the scope of the Saramakas’ right to their traditionally owned territory and the State’s corresponding obligations, within the context of the present case. D. THE RIGHT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SARAMAKA PEOPLE TO USE AND ENJOY THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT LIE ON AND WITHIN THEIR TRADITIONALLY OWNED TERRITORY 118. An issue that necessarily flows from the assertion that the members of the Saramaka people have a right to use and enjoy their territory in accordance with their traditions and customs is the issue of the right to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources that lie on and within the land, including subsoil natural resources. In the present case, both the State and the members of the Saramaka people claim a right to these natural resources. The Saramakas claim that their right to use and enjoy all such natural resources is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of their right to property under Article 21 of the Convention. The State argued that all rights to land, particularly its subsoil natural resources, are vested in the State, which can freely dispose of these resources through concessions to third parties. The Court will address this complex issue in the following order: first, the right of the members of the Saramaka people to use and enjoy the natural resources that lie on and within their traditionally owned territory; second, the State’s grant of concessions for the exploration and extraction of natural resources, including subsoil resources found within Saramaka territory; and finally, the fulfillment of international law guarantees regarding the exploration and extraction concessions already issued by the State. 119. First, the Court must analyze whether and to what extent the members of the Saramaka people have a right to use and enjoy the natural resources that lie on and within their traditionally owned territory. The State does not contest that the Saramakas have traditionally used and occupied certain lands for centuries, or that the Saramakas have an “interest” in the territory they have traditionally used in accordance with their customs. The controversy lies regarding the nature and scope of said interest. In accordance with Suriname’s legal and constitutional framework, the Saramakas do not have property rights per se, but rather merely a privilege or permission to use and occupy the lands in question (supra paras. 97-115). According to Article 41 of the Constitution of Suriname and Article 2 of its 1986 Mining Decree, ownership rights of all natural resources vest in the State119. For this reason, the State claims to have an inalienable right to the exploration and exploitation of those resources. On the other hand, the customary laws of the Saramaka people allegedly vest in its community a right over all natural resources within and subjacent to or otherwise pertaining to its traditional territory. In support of this assertion, the Court heard testimony from a Saramaka Captain to the effect that the Saramaka people have a general right to “own everything, from the very top of the trees to the very deepest place that you could go under the ground.”120 120. In this regard, this Court has previously held121 that the cultural and economic survival of indigenous and tribal peoples, and their members, depend on their access and 119 Constitution of Suriname, Article 41 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 3, folio 28), and Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986 supra note 106, Article 2 (folio 120). 120 Testimony of Head Captain and Fiscali Wazen Eduards, supra note 61 (transcription of public hearing, p. 8). 121 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 137, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 118.