53 indigenous village was upheld over the objections of the Captain of that village. The judge held that since the holder of the land had a valid title under Surinamese law, and the indigenous community did not have title or any other written permit issued by the State, the village had to respect the ownership right of the private title holder.196 181. The above points are also consistent with the expert testimony of Professor Mariska Muskiet, who also observed that “Article 1386 [of the Civil Code] involves a civil tort action and does not provide effective means to address the underlying problem that the Saramaka face: the lack of recognition of their communal property rights.”197 Professor Muskiet’s affidavit explains the nature of a series of “insurmountable problems for the Saramaka people to file and win a case under article 1386”,198 and which support her conclusion that “invoking Article 1386 of Suriname’s Civil Code would be futile in the circumstances of the Saramaka people’s claims and the rights that they are seeking to protect. They would have no hope of success.”199 182. Thus, the Court concludes that the provisions under Suriname’s Civil Code do not provide adequate and effective recourse against acts that violate the Saramakas’ rights to communal property. H.2) The Mining Decree of 1986 183. The State also argued that its Mining Decree provides effective remedies that the victims failed to invoke. The Court hereby reiterates (supra para. 111) that this decree only allows for an appeal to the judiciary should the miner and a rightful “claimant” or “third party” be unable to reach an agreement on the amount of compensation required.200 Nevertheless, to qualify as a rightful “claimant” or “third party”, the persons in question must hold some form of registered right or title issued by the State.201 Thus, the purported remedy established under the Mining Decree is inadequate and ineffective in the case at hand because the members of the Saramaka people do not hold title to their traditional territory or any part thereof. They cannot therefore qualify as “a rightful claimant” or “third party” under the Mining Decree. This position is consistent with the expert opinion of Dr. Hoever-Venoaks, who declared that the “Mining Decree […] does not offer legal protection to ‘inhabitants of the interior living in tribal communities’.” 202 H.3) The Forest Management Act of 1992 184. Furthermore, the State alleged that Article 41(1)(b) of the Forest Management Act allows members of the tribal peoples to lodge appeals with the President of Suriname in cases where their alleged customary rights to their villages and settlements, as well as their agricultural plots, are not respected. The members of the Saramaka people have lodged at least two complaints with the President of Suriname, and have to date received no official 196 Affidavit of Mariska Muskiet, supra note 187. Affidavit of Mariska Muskiet, supra note 187, (folio 1950). 198 Affidavit of Mariska Muskiet, supra note 187, (folio 1950). 199 Affidavit of Mariska Muskiet, supra note 187 (folio 1950). Cf. also U.N., Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, U.N. Doc. A/59/258, August 12, 2004, para. 29 (whereby the Special Rapporteur emphasized that “indigenous peoples do not have equal access to the justice system and encounter discrimination of all kinds in the operation of the justice system.”) 200 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986 supra note 106, Article 46 (a) (folio 144). 201 Decree E 58 of May 8, 1986 supra note 106, Article 46 (a) (folio 144). 202 Affidavit of Dr. M.R. Hoever-Venoaks of April 29, 2007 (case file of affidavits and observations, appendix 10, folio 1982). 197