and tribal communities, but did not recognize such communities as legal entities or establish collective rights to property.142 107. Subsequently, in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, the Court noted that other communities in Suriname had been denied their rights owing to lack of legal standing and considered that “the right that the State recognize their juridical personality is one of the special measures that should be granted to the indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they may enjoy their territories according to their traditions. This is the natural consequence of the recognition of the right of the members of the indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights collectively.”143 Thus, the Court found that this recognition could be achieved by adopting legislative or other measures that recognized and took into account the specific way in which a tribal people sees itself as able to exercise and to enjoy the right to property collectively. Consequently, the State should establish the necessary legal and administrative conditions to ensure the possibility of recognition of their juridical personality, by means of consultations, fully respecting their customs and traditions, and in order to ensure them the use and enjoyment of their territory in accordance with their system of communal ownership, as well as the right of access to justice and equality before the law. 144 108. Thus, the Court indicated that although “the recognition of [the] juridical personality of the individual members of the community was necessary for the enjoyment of other rights, such as the right to life and to personal integrity, this individual recognition did not take into account the way in which the members of the indigenous and tribal peoples in general, and […] in particular, enjoy and exercise one right in particular; namely, the right to use and enjoy property collectively in accordance with their ancestral traditions.”145 109. Nevertheless, “the recognition of juridical personality is one way, although not the only way, to ensure that the community as a whole may enjoy and exercise fully the right to property, in accordance with their system of communal ownership, as well as the right to equal judicial protection against any violation of this right.”146 110. The Court also notes that, in the 1992 Lelydorp Peace Accord, the State undertook to create legal mechanisms to protect the lands of the indigenous and tribal peoples (supra, para. 51). 111. Meanwhile, this Court takes note of the observations made by various international agencies, such as: the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination of the United Nations147 (hereinafter “UN”), the UN Human Rights Committee148 and also the UN Special 142 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra, para. 86.5. 143 Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 172. 144 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 174. 145 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 168. 146 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 171. 147 Cf. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention, Concluding observations on Suriname (sixty-fourth session, 2004), UN Doc. CERD/C/64/CO/9, 28 April 2004, para. 11. Available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/layouts/treatybody external/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2F64%2FCO%2F9&Lang=en. 148 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding observations on Suriname (eightieth session, 2004), UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/SUR, 4 May 2004, para. 21. Available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FCO%2F80%2FSUR&Lang=e n. 30