B. Considerations of the Court B.1 Interpretation of the right to collective property and participation in public affairs of the indigenous peoples in this case 122. As established by this Court in 2007 in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, the domestic laws of Suriname do not recognize the right to communal property of the members of its tribal peoples and it has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169.156 However, Suriname has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights157 (ICESCR), and voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is the body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the ICESCR by the States Parties, has interpreted Article 1 common to both Covenants as applicable to indigenous peoples.158 In this regard, based on the right to selfdetermination of the indigenous peoples pursuant to the said Article 1, such peoples may “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” and may “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources” to ensure that they are not “deprived of [their] own means of subsistence.”159 According to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, this Court is unable to interpret the provisions of Article 21 of this instrument in a sense that would limit the enjoyment and exercise of the rights recognized by Suriname in these covenants.160 123. Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee has examined the obligations of the States Parties to the ICCPR, including Suriname, under Article 27 of that instrument, and noted that “persons belonging to these minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, [which] may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with territory and use of its resources. This may particularly be true of members of indigenous communities constituting a minority.”161 156 Cf. International Labour Organization (ILO), Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, adopted on 27 June 1989, and in force since 5 September 1991. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314. Nevertheless, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted with the support of the State of Suriname, and its article 32 recognizes the right to consultation. Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 131, footnote 128, and United Nations (UN), United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution 61/295, 107th plenary meeting of the General Assembly, 13 September 2007. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf. 157 Suriname ratified both instruments on December 28, 1976. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 99 U.N.T.S. 171, Can T.S. 1976 No. 47, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entry into force 23 March 1976), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entry into force 3 January 1976). 158 Cf. UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant. Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (thirty-first session). UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.94, 12 December 2003, para. 11, in which the Committee expressed concern “about the precarious situation of indigenous communities in the State party, affecting their right to self-determination under article 1 of the Covenant.” 159 Article 1(1), common to the ICCPR and the ICESCR, establishes that “[a]ll peoples have the right of selfdetermination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” 160 Cf. Article 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, paras. 93 Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 37, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 113 to 115 (affirming an interpretation of international human rights instruments that takes into account the progressive development of the corpus iuris gentium of international human rights law over time and also present-day conditions). 161 Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 94. UN, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23. Article 27 (Rights of Minorities) (fiftieth session, 1994), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21Rev.1/Add.5, 4 August 1994, paras. 1 and 3.2. 34