13 people to the territory they have traditionally used and occupied.25 The process of adopting such measures, as well as the content of said legislative and administrative measures, must be determined by the State and the Saramaka people jointly in accordance with the Court´s Judgment (supra para. 16). 49. The Judgment also stated that the right to property is not absolute, and thus may be restricted by the State under very specific, exceptional circumstances, particularly when indigenous or tribal land rights are involved.26 In this sense, the Judgment states in paragraph 127 that in “accordance with [Article 21 of the Convention], and the Court’s jurisprudence, the State will be able to restrict, under certain circumstances, the Saramakas’ property rights, including their rights to natural resources found on and within the territory”, by granting concessions for development or investment projects within or that affect Saramaka territory. The Court discussed in the previous chapter those specific and exceptional circumstances in which the State may restrict the rights to property of the members of the Saramaka people (supra paras. 34 and 38). 50. In accordance with the aforementioned, the grant of concessions for development or investment projects within or that affect Saramaka territory constitutes a type of restriction on the use and enjoyment of such property. To the extent that this property corresponds to the members of the Saramaka people, they have the “right to manage, distribute, and effectively control such territories, in accordance with their customary laws and traditional collective land tenure system”27, as well as in conformity with domestic legislation, insofar as it is compatible with the American Convention and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. 51. The Judgment addressed the issue of concessions in the context of proposed development, investment, exploration or extraction plans within Saramaka territory. In the footnote accompanying the three safeguards stated in paragraph 129 of the Judgment, the Tribunal specified that by […] “development or investment plan” the Court means any proposed activity that may affect the integrity of the lands and natural resources within the territory of the Saramaka people, particularly any proposal to grant logging or mining concessions. 52. The Court specifically addressed in the Judgment two types of concessions, that is, those involving logging or mining. As to these types of concessions, the Court held that the timber and gold mining concessions previously granted by the State generated a violation of the right to property of the members of the Saramaka people. Regarding timber, the Court explicitly stated in paragraph 146 of its Judgment: […] in accordance with the above analysis regarding the extraction of natural resources that are necessary for the survival of the Saramaka people[28] and consequently, its members, the State should not have granted logging concessions within Saramaka territory unless and until the three safeguards of effective participation, benefit-sharing, and prior environmental and social impact assessments were complied with. 53. Regarding gold mining, the Court stated in paragraph 156 that: Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, Operative Paragraphs 5 and 7. Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, paras. 127 and 129 of the Judgment. 27 Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 194(c). 28 In paragraph 122 of the Judgment, the Court stated that “[…] the natural resources found on and within indigenous and tribal people’s territories that are protected under Article 21 are those natural resources traditionally used and necessary for the very survival, development, and continuation of such people’s way of life.” Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 122. 25 26