12 43. The Court also highlights that, in addition to the ESIAs, the State must comply with the other requirements stated in the Judgment when evaluating whether it should grant concessions for development and investment activities within or that affect the Saramaka territory. VI CONCESSIONS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE SARAMAKA PEOPLE 44. The State asked the Court to clarify to whom the State may grant concessions, and as to which development and investment activities. Specifically, the State suggested that once the “three requirements” set forth in the Judgment are fulfilled, it may grant concessions within Saramaka territory to non-Saramaka persons, and that the Saramaka must request concessions to engage in non-traditional activities on Saramaka territory, such as “mining activities, big scale or commercial forestry, tourism, etc.” 45. The Commission could not discern an issue requiring clarification in the State’s request. The Commission pointed out, however, that “it was not the intention of [the] Tribunal to impose an additional burden on the members of the Saramaka people” by making them seek concessions from the State to continue to access the natural resources they have traditionally used, such as timber and non-timber forest products. 46. The representatives interpreted the State’s request for clarification in this matter as an argument that the State “has the decisive authority with respect to the conduct of any nontraditional activity” on Saramaka territory by anyone, whether or not they are a member of the Saramaka people. The representatives quoted paragraph 194 of the Judgment which states that the members of the Saramaka people have the “right to manage, distribute, and effectively control such territories, in accordance with their customary laws and traditional collective land tenure system”, and interpreted that phrase to imply that the Saramaka people have a right to self-determined economic development of all resources within their territory without the interference of the State. They also expressed concern that misinterpretation and misapplication of the standards and requirements of the Judgment could result in serious and irreparable damage to the Saramaka people and their territory. 47. The Court observes that some of the issues raised by the State fall outside the factual scope of the Judgment, and therefore of this interpretation, particularly in relation to alleged tourism activities within Saramaka territory. Nonetheless, in order to avoid potential misinterpretations of the Judgment, the Court will address the issues raised by the State, insofar as they pertain to the Operative Paragraphs or the considerations that support the Court’s orders. 48. In paragraph 194(c) and Operative Paragraph 7 of the Judgment, the Court observed that the members of the Saramaka people have the “right to manage, distribute, and effectively control such territories, in accordance with their customary laws and traditional collective land tenure system”.24 To that end, the Court ordered the State, inter alia, to delimit, demarcate, and give collective title over the territory of the Saramaka people, and to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures as may be required to recognize, protect, guarantee, and give legal effect to the right of the members of the Saramaka The Court has also previously held that “traditional possession of their lands by indigenous people has equivalent effects to those of a state-granted full property title.” Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 128. 24