allegedly owned by the State. Furthermore, the body of evidence in the case includes a partial list with the names of approximately 17 non-indigenous persons who own title to land in the territories of the indigenous peoples of Pierrekondre and Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha).182 The Court is unaware of the type of title granted (ownership or leasehold). 147. Furthermore, during the on-site procedure, the Court’s delegation was able to verify the existence of several buildings on the territory of Pierrekondre and Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha), located on the banks of the Marowijne River, which are presumably vacation homes of third parties.183 These buildings have security devices preventing entry, thus restricting access to the river. In addition, the delegation observed the construction of a small building that, according to the representatives, consisted in a hotel-casino.184 Thus, the Court has verified that some of the land claimed by the Kaliña and Lokono peoples is owned by non-indigenous third parties. However, despite this, the members of these peoples “still, today, consider that those lands belong to them.”185 148. During the on-site procedure, the Court also corroborated that the residential area of the villages of Erowarte, Tapuku, Pierrekondre and Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha) is only a few meters away from the buildings of the local indigenous peoples.186 149. In this regard, the Court’s consistent case law has established that indigenous and tribal peoples who have lost their traditional lands involuntarily have the right to request restitution, or to obtain other lands of the same size and quality, when those lands have been transferred legally to innocent third parties.187 150. Likewise, as established in the cases of the communities of Moiwana, Yakye Axa, Sawhoyamaxa and Xákmok Kásek, the physical and spiritual foundations of the identity of the indigenous peoples are based mainly on their unique relationship with their traditional lands, so that, while this relationship exists, the right to request the restitution of those lands remains valid. If this relationship should have extinguished, that right would also extinguish.188 182 Cf. Partial list of non-indigenous persons who hold titles within the indigenous territory of the Lower Marowijne (file of annexes to the Merits Report, folio 365). These persons are: (a) in Pierrekondre: 1. Mr. Ramlal; 2. Mr. Findlay; 3. Mrs. Ramdath; 4. Mr. Tjon Tjin Joe; 5. Mr. Tjon a Tjoen; 6. Mr. Tjoe a Long; 7. Mr. Hee On; 8. Mr. De Vries; 9. Mr. Quartier, and 10. Mr. Ferreira, and (b) in Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha): 11. Mr. Tjon a Tjoen; 12. Mr. Tjon a Tjoen; 13. Mr. Tjanga-sin; 14. Mr. Liesdeck; 15. De Surinaamse Bank; 16. Mr. Tjon Sienki, and 17. Mr. Dinesh Boekha. 183 Cf. Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 443) and Testimony of Captain Jona Gunther during the public hearing held in this case. 184 Although the Court delegation verified the construction of the building, it was unable to verify from the evidence in the case file before the Court or from the on-site procedure, whether this construction was destined to be a hotel or a casino. 185 Cf. Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 444). 186 In her affidavit, alleged victim Grace Watamaleo indicated that she wanted to be “very clear that the houses [of third parties were] in [their] villages and right next to where [the indigenous people had] their houses. [It was] like someone built a house in [their] back yard. Many of the people in [her] community look out of their windows or front doors and see th[o]se houses. [They were] meters away from many of [their] houses and not in some uninhabited part of [their] lands.” Similarly, alleged victim Captain Jona Gunther testified during the public hearing that the houses of third parties had been built from five to ten meters from the indigenous homes. Cf. Affidavit made by Captain Grace Watamaleo on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 444) and Testimony of Captain Jona Gunther during the public hearing held in this case. 187 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 128, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 173. 188 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra, para. 131 and 133; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 131, 135, 137 and 154; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 127, 130 and 131, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, para. 112. 40