10 in accordance with enjoyment of the established by law; legitimate objective 35. Article 21 of the Convention, a State may restrict the use and right to property where the restrictions are: a) previously b) necessary; c) proportional, and d) with the aim of achieving a in a democratic society.18 In paragraph 128 of the Judgment, the Court stated that […] in analyzing whether restrictions on the property right of members of indigenous and tribal peoples are permissible, especially regarding the use and enjoyment of their traditionally owned lands and natural resources, another crucial factor to be considered is whether the restriction amounts to a denial of their traditions and customs in a way that endangers the very survival of the group and of its members. That is, under Article 21 of the Convention, the State may restrict the Saramakas’ right to use and enjoy their traditionally owned lands and natural resources only when such restriction complies with the aforementioned requirements and, additionally, when it does not deny their survival as a tribal people […].19 36. These safeguards are intended to preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that the members of the Saramaka community have with their territory, which in turn ensures their survival as a tribal people. Thus, the State must satisfy each of the requirements mentioned above. 37. The Court emphasized in the Judgment that the phrase “survival as a tribal people” must be understood as the ability of the Saramaka to “preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that [they] have with their territory”20, so that “they may continue living their traditional way of life, and that their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected […]”.21 That is, the term “survival” in this context signifies much more than physical survival. 38. In order to guarantee their survival as a tribal people, the Court established a series of complementary requirements applicable to the Saramaka in particular, and indigenous and tribal peoples in general. To this end, the Court stated in paragraph 129 that in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in order to guarantee that restrictions to the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people by the issuance of concessions within their territory does not amount to a denial of their survival as a tribal people, the State must abide by the following three safeguards: First, the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the Saramaka people, in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration or extraction plan […] within Saramaka territory. Second, the State must guarantee that the Saramaka will receive a reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory. Thirdly, the State must ensure that no concession will be issued within Saramaka territory unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a 18 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, paras. 127 and 137; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 144145 citing (mutatis mutandi) Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 96; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 127, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74. para. 155. 19 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 128; and mutatis mutandis, UNHRC, Länsman et al. v. Finland (Fifty-second session, 1994), Communication No. 511/1992, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/511/1994, November 8, 1994, para. 9.4 (allowing States to pursue development activities that limit the rights of a minority culture as long as the activity does not fully extinguish the indigenous people’s way of life). 20 Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, paras. 91 and 129. 21 Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 121.