27 of possession and production but a material and spiritual element, which they must fully enjoy […] to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.83 91. In essence, pursuant to Article 21 of the Convention, States must respect the special relationship that members of indigenous and tribal peoples have with their territory in a way that guarantees their social, cultural, and economic survival.84 Such protection of property under Article 21 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument, places upon States a positive obligation to adopt special measures that guarantee members of indigenous and tribal peoples the full and equal exercise of their right to the territories they have traditionally used and occupied. B.2) Interpretation of Article 21 of the American Convention in the present case 92. The Court recognizes that it has arrived at such an interpretation of Article 21 in previous cases in light of Article 29(b) of the Convention, which prohibits an interpretation of any provision of the Convention in a manner that restricts its enjoyment to a lesser degree than what is recognized in the domestic laws of the State in question or in another treaty to which the State is a party. Accordingly, the Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Convention in light of the domestic legislation pertaining to indigenous peoples´ rights in Nicaragua85 and Paraguay,86 for example, as well as taking into account the International Labor Organization's Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (hereinafter “ILO Convention 169”).87 93. As will be discussed infra (paras. 97-107), Suriname’s domestic legislation does not recognize a right to communal property of members of its tribal communities, and it has not ratified ILO Convention 169. Nevertheless, Suriname has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.88 The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which is the body of independent experts that supervises State parties’ implementation of the ICESCR, has interpreted common Article 1 of said instruments as being applicable to 83 Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, para. 149. Cf. also Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 85; Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 118, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 131. 84 Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, paras. 148-149, and 151; 148149, and 151; Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, paras. 118-121, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, paras. 124, 131, 135 and 154. Cf. also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 75/02, Case 11.140. Mary and Carrie Dann. United States, December 27, 2002, para. 128 (observing that “continued utilization of traditional collective systems for the control and use of territory are in many instances essential to the individual and collective well-being, and indeed the survival of, indigenous peoples”), and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 40/04, Merits. Case 12.052. Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District. Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 114 (emphasizing that “organs of the inter-American human rights system have acknowledged that indigenous peoples enjoy a particular relationship with the lands and resources traditionally occupied and used by them, by which those lands and resources are considered to be owned and enjoyed by the indigenous community as a whole and according to which the use and enjoyment of the land and its resources are integral components of the physical and cultural survival of the indigenous communities and the effective realization of their human right more broadly.”) 85 Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, paras. 148, 150 and 152-153. 86 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, paras. 138-139, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, paras. 122-123. 87 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, paras. 127-130, and Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 117. 88 Suriname ratified both on March 28, 1977. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 99U.N.T.S. 171, Can T.S. 1976 No. 47, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered in force 23 March 1976), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered into force 3 January 1976).