i) The impact in the Galibi Nature Reserve 183. The Court takes note that, according to statements made when the delegation visited this reserve (supra para. 14), during the internal conflict, access to the Galibi Nature Reserve was prohibited owing to the increase in the theft of turtle eggs, and military checkpoints were established at the access sites (supra para. 78). In 2005, security checkpoints were also installed that limited access to the area and, in 2006, one of the guards fired a shot in the air. The Court has verified that, in 1998, the Dialogue Commission was established and agreement was reached on access to and use of the reserve, restricting the extraction of turtle eggs to the personal consumption of the members of the indigenous peoples and not for commercial purposes. In addition, ways for participating in the monitoring of the reserve were established, as well as measures to share the benefits of the increased tourism activity in the area. These measures were verified during the visit. It was also noted that the Dialogue Commission is no longer functioning. During the visit to the area, all the parties indicated that, at the present time, the neighboring communities continue to have access and participate in the benefits. 184. The Court lacks evidence about the circumstances of time, manner and place in which the alleged restrictions occurred and, if applicable, the specific impact on the neighboring communities, as well as the duration of such restrictions. Moreover, there is no evidence that any complaint was filed about these measures in the domestic jurisdiction. Also, the Court understands that the 1998 Dialogue Commission established agreements with the indigenous population in the area. It is worth noting that, in 2007, when the case was lodged before the Inter-American Commission, there was no evidence of any significant restriction in the area in question, so that, by then, the alleged impacts had already been resolved. ii) The impact in the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve 185. Regarding the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, it was alleged that the indigenous peoples were not allowed to access their traditional sites in the area of the mining concession, and also that trees had been cut down during the mining operations, despite the provisions of the 1986 Nature Protection Order (supra para. 83). 186. In this regard, the Court observes that article 4 of the 1986 Order creating this reserve established that the traditional rights of the tribal communities and villages located within the reserve would be respected. Also, its preamble established that these rights would be guaranteed as long as: (i) the national objective of the proposed nature reserves was not prejudiced; (ii) the traditional rights and interests remained valid, and (iii) it was part of the process of progressing towards a single Suriname citizenship. 187. In this regard, Captain Watamaleo testified that: “The mining company […] used to stop people from the community from entering the reserve. They put up a big sign that said: ‘no hunting,’ ‘no fishing’ and ‘no plant collecting’ and they would stop people from our communities going in there. At the same time, we could see company people and others that they let in there hunting and fishing, even using poison to kill a large number of fish. We know how to go there without them seeing us, but it is very hard to find food there anymore.” 188. Meanwhile, Glenn Renaldo Kingswijk,233 employee of BHP Billiton-Suralco, testified that, based on company policy, several practices were adopted including: 233 Testimony of Glenn Renaldo Kingswijk before the IACHR (evidence file, folio 362). 50