Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples,149 which have indicated that the legislative framework of Suriname does not recognize the legal personality of the indigenous peoples that would enable them to protect their territories and natural resources. 112. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that, currently, the laws of Suriname do not recognize the legal personality of the indigenous peoples and, consequently, they are unable to hold collective property titles. This was corroborated by the State during the hearing and by the indigenous representatives to the Suriname National Assembly during the visit made to the National Assembly by the Court’s delegation in the course of the on-site procedure. 113. The foregoing is particularly serious owing to the provisions of the judgment in the case of the Saramaka People of November 28, 2007 (supra para. 107),150 which were reiterated to the State for the effects of that case, in the order on monitoring compliance of November 23, 2011.151 114. In conclusion, since the domestic laws of Suriname do not recognize the collective exercise of the juridical personality of the indigenous and tribal peoples, this Court finds that the State has violated Article 3 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, in relation to Article 2 of this instrument. In addition, for the effects of the instant case, the failure to recognize the juridical personality of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples has an impact on the violation of other rights recognized in Articles 1(1), 21 and 25 of the Convention, as will be examined below. VI-II RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE PROPERTY (ARTICLE 21) AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ARTICLE 23) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 115. The Commission argued that the State of Suriname had violated the right to property established in Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, by failing to adopt effective measures to recognize their right to collective ownership of the lands, territories and natural resources that they had traditionally and ancestrally occupied and used. Added to this, the Commission argued that the State had violated the Kaliña and Lokono peoples’ right to property by: (i) granting property titles to non-indigenous persons within their traditional territory; (ii) establishing and maintaining the Wia Wia, Galibi and Wane Kreek Nature Reserves, and (iii) granting a mining concessions and authorizing mining operations within their traditional territory, all without conducting a prior, free and informed consultation process in accordance with the Inter-American standards, without a social and environmental impact assessment, and without granting them a reasonable share of the benefits derived from the concession. 116. In particular, the Commission argued that the continued granting of titles to nonindigenous third parties has meant that the rights of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples remain 149 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2002/65 (fifty-ninth session), UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/90, 21 January 2003, para. 21. Available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G03/105/44/PDF/G0310544.pdf?OpenElement. 150 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 194. 151 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2011, operative paragraph 3.b). 31