unprotected. It also asserted that some of the third parties had obtained court rulings in favor of their property rights, thus excluding the rights of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples. Regarding the nature reserves, the Commission affirmed that there was no rational connection between the protection of the environment and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the territories and resources by indigenous peoples, because the latter contributed to its protection. The Commission also underlined the need to initiate a free and informed consultation with the communities to discuss the possibility of eliminating the reserves or retaining them under a comanagement model that incorporated the full participation of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples. With regard to the mining concessions, the Commission indicated that the State had not consulted the communities affected when the mining operations were planned or commenced, and had failed to include any type of protection for the indigenous peoples. Also, the concessions had adversely affected activities in the traditional territory of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples by contamination of resources, deforestation, and habitat destruction, which had result in the decline of the wildlife they hunted. 117. The representatives agreed with the Commission that the State had not recognized or guaranteed the right of the indigenous peoples to collective property. They also indicated that Suriname’s acts and omissions were all the more egregious given the relationship between the recognition, guarantee and protection of the right to property and the victims’ survival and wellbeing, as well as respect for other interrelated and interdependent rights. They added that, by failing to recognize and secure the rights of the alleged victims to their territory, Suriname had violated the right to property of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, allocating areas of the lands to third parties and issuing individual titles in four of the victims’ communities (Erowarte, Tapuku, Pierrekondre and Marijkedorp [Wan Shi Sha]); establishing nature reserves in their territory, and unilaterally granting concessions to exploit the natural resources. 118. In particular, the representatives argued that granting titles to non-indigenous third parties, despite the objections of the community, violated the State’s obligation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the right to property. Regarding the nature reserves, they added that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to deny the indigenous peoples the right to property and other rights within the reserves, because conservation objectives could be achieved using less harmful means. Specifically, they affirmed that the State had, on the one hand, permitted mining concessions in nature reserves while, on the other hand, it had justified the denial of the alleged victims’ rights to hunt and fish. The representatives also indicated that the Kaliña and Lokono peoples had not been consulted as regard the 1997 process to granting mining permits that authorized mining activities. In addition, no environmental impact assessment had been made before the start-up of these operations, and the Kaliña and Lokono peoples had not benefited from, or otherwise been compensated for, the use of their territory for mining activities. The representatives argued that, to the contrary, the mining and logging operations in the traditional territory of the alleged victims took place without any meaningful regulation or supervision by the State and prejudiced their traditional food sources, environment, and cultural and spiritual values. Furthermore, the representatives indicated that the State had failed to ensure that such activities would not cause significant damage to the traditional lands of the victims or lead to severe environmental degradation. 119. The State indicated that, in about 1975, the Government had “initiated a project called “Tuinstad Albina,” to parcel out an area in the vicinity of the villages of Erowarte, Tapuku, Pierrekondre and Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha), in which titles of ownership, long-term lease and leasehold were granted to a number of non-indigenous and indigenous individuals.”152 The State 152 According to the State, the public records show that, indeed, titles for a limited number of parcels were issued to non-indigenous persons, but also to indigenous persons such as Cornelis Pierre who requested and obtained a long-term lease on two lots in Erowarte, Tuinstad Albina. 32