6 capacity, pertaining to the community to which they belong;7 (3) the process of adopting 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 people to the territory they have traditionally used and occupied;8 (4) the process of adopting legislative, administrative and other measures necessary to recognize and ensure the right of the Saramaka people to be effectively consulted, in accordance with their traditions and customs;9 (5) regarding the results of prior environmental and social impact assessments,10 and (6) regarding any proposed restrictions of the Saramaka people’s property rights, particularly regarding proposed development or investment plans in or affecting Saramaka territory.11 17. In paragraph 133 of the Judgment, the Court further clarified this last issue, stating that “in ensuring the effective participation of members of the Saramaka people in development or investment plans within their territory, the State has a duty to actively consult with said community according to their customs and traditions”. In paragraphs 133 through 137 the Court gave specific guidelines as to what issues must be the subject of consultation, when the consultation must take place, why the Saramaka people must be consulted, and how the consultation must be carried out. Accordingly, the State has a duty, from the onset of the proposed activity, to actively consult with the Saramaka people in good faith and with the objective of reaching an agreement, which in turn requires the State to both accept and disseminate information in an understandable and publicly accessible format. Furthermore, depending upon the level of impact of the proposed activity, the State may additionally be required to obtain consent from the Saramaka people. The Tribunal has emphasized that when large-scale development or investment projects could affect the integrity of the Saramaka people’s lands and natural resources, the State has a duty not only to consult with the Saramakas, but also to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent in accordance with their customs and traditions.12 In Operative Paragraph 6 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 174, the Court ordered the State to “establish, in consultation with the Saramaka people and fully respecting their traditions and customs, the judicial and administrative conditions necessary to ensure the recognition of their juridical personality, with the aim of guaranteeing them the use and enjoyment of their territory in accordance with their communal property system, as well as the rights to access to justice and equality before the law.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 174. 8 In Operative Paragraph 7 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 194(c), the Court ordered the State to “remove or amend the legal provisions that impede protection of the right to property of the members of the Saramaka people and adopt, in its domestic legislation, and through prior, effective and fully informed consultations with the Saramaka people, 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 people to hold collective title of the territory they have traditionally used and occupied.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 194(c). 9 In Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 194(d), the Court ordered the State to “adopt legislative, administrative and other measures necessary to recognize and ensure the right of the Saramaka people to be effectively consulted, in accordance with their traditions and customs, or when necessary, the right to give or withhold their free, informed and prior consent, with regards to development or investment projects that may affect their territory, and to reasonably share the benefits of such projects with the members of the Saramaka people, should these be ultimately carried out. The Saramaka people must be consulted during the process established to comply with this form of reparation.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 194(d). 10 In Operative Paragraph 9 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 133, the Court ordered the State to “ensure that members of the Saramaka people are aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, in order that the proposed development or investment plan is accepted knowingly and voluntarily.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 133. 11 In paragraph 129 of the Judgment, the Court declared 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 […] ensure the[ir] effective participation […], in conformity with their customs and traditions […].” Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 129. 12 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, paras. 133 through 137. 7