47 people in accordance with their traditions, or guaranteeing their members a reasonable share in the benefits of the project. As such, the State violated the members of the Saramaka peoples’ right to property under Article 21 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of such instrument. 157. With regard to the concessions within Saramaka territory that have already been granted to private parties, including Saramaka members, the Court has already declared (supra paras. 127-128) that “when indigenous communal property and individual private property are in real or apparent contradiction, the American Convention itself and the jurisprudence of the Court provide guidelines to establish admissible restrictions to the enjoyment and exercise of those rights”.173 Thus, the State has a duty to evaluate, in light of the present Judgment and the Court’s jurisprudence,174 whether a restriction of these private property rights is necessary to preserve the survival of the Saramaka people. * * * 158. From all of the above considerations, the Court concludes the following: first, that 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 that are necessary for their survival; second, that the State may restrict said right by granting concessions for the exploration and extraction of natural resources found on and within Saramaka territory only if the State ensures the effective participation and benefit of the Saramaka people, performs or supervises prior environmental and social impact assessments, and implements adequate safeguards and mechanisms in order to ensure that these activities do not significantly affect the traditional Saramaka lands and natural resources; and finally, that the concessions already issued by the State did not comply with these safeguards. Thus, the Court considers that the State has violated Article 21 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of such instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Saramaka people. G. THE LACK OF RECOGNITION OF THE SARAMAKA PEOPLE AS A JURIDICAL PERSONALITY MAKES THEM INELIGIBLE UNDER DOMESTIC LAW TO RECEIVE COMMUNAL TITLE TO PROPERTY AS A TRIBAL COMMUNITY AND TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS 159. The representatives alleged that the State has violated its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention by denying the Saramaka people of their right to recognition of their legal personality. According to the representatives, the lack of recognition of the Saramaka people as a juridical personality makes them ineligible under domestic law to receive communal title to land as a tribal community. Only individual members of the Saramaka community, acting as individuals, may receive a leasehold on State land. The representatives request, therefore, that the State recognize the juridical personality of the Saramaka people as a distinct people, in accordance also with their right to selfdetermination. 160. As a preliminary matter, the State argued that the Commission did not allege a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its application before the Court, and that such alleged violation was not included in its Article 50 Report. The State maintains that the 173 Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 144. Cf. also, UNHRC, Ivan Kitok v. Sweden, Communication No. 197/1985, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/33/D/197/1985, August 10, 1988, para. 9.8. 174 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, paras. 144-145, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 137.