32 C.4) Domestic legislation 106. Finally, the State argued that, although it “may be correct that land related interests of the [Saramaka] are not recognized as a subjective right in the Suriname legal system[,] it is a tendentious misrepresentation to suggest that legitimate interests of the Tribe are not recognized by the system and respected in practice.” According to the State, the existing domestic legislation recognizes certain “interests” of members of indigenous and tribal peoples to land. These legal instruments include the 1987 Constitution, the L-1 Decrees of 1982, the Mining Decree of 1986, and the Forest Management Act of 1992. As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that an alleged recognition and respect in practice of “legitimate interests” of the members of the Saramaka people cannot be understood to satisfy the State’s obligations under Article 2 of the Convention with regards to Article 21 of such instrument. The Court will proceed to analyze the extent to which these legal instruments recognize an “interest”, rather than a right, to property of members of the Saramaka people. C.4.a) The Constitution of 1987 107. With regard to this argument, the State first recognized that “(l)and rights of the Saramaka Tribe are indeed not explicitly recognized or guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution”, but also submitted that said constitutional recognition is not a requirement under Article 2 of the Convention. As the State correctly pointed out, Suriname is not an exception in this regard, as many other State Parties to the Convention have constitutions that do not explicitly recognize the communal property rights systems exercised and enjoyed by members of indigenous and tribal peoples. Yet the obligation to give domestic legal effect to the right to collective property does not necessarily imply a constitutional recognition of such right. Article 2 of the Convention requires States to give domestic legal effect to those rights and freedoms by “such legislative or other measures as may be necessary.” In the case of Suriname, no such legislative or other measures have been adopted. C.4.b) The L-1 Decrees 108. Second, the State referred to the L-1 Decrees of 1982. Article 4 of Decree L-1 reads as follows: (1) When domain land [which is defined as land owned by the State by virtue of its Constitution] is allocated, the rights of tribal Bushnegroes [Maroons] and Indians to their villages, settlements and agricultural plots are respected, provided that this is not contrary to the general interest. (2) General interest includes the execution of any project within the framework of an approved development plan.104 109. The official explanatory note to Article 4(1) of Decree L-1 explains that account should be given to the “factual rights” of members of indigenous and tribal peoples when domain land is being issued.105 110. The use of the term “factual rights” (or de facto rights) in the explanatory note to Article 4(1) of Decree L-1 serves to distinguish these “rights” from the legal (de jure) rights 104 Decree L-1 of June 15, 1982, containing basic principles concerning Land Policy, SB 1982, no. 10, Article 4 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 5, folio 53). 105 Decree L-1 of June 15, 1982, supra note 104.