over time and in keeping with all the applicable criteria, and the Dialogue Commission is inactive (supra paras. 79 and 183). In this regard, the representatives insisted that the law applicable to the Galibi Nature Reserve was the 1954 Act, which expressly prohibited hunting and fishing within the reserve. 194. The Court has verified that the 1954 Nature Protection Act prohibited hunting and fishing in the reserves. However, the 1986 Order recognized the protection of the indigenous and tribal peoples who live in certain nature reserves (supra para. 83) without referring expressly to the Galibi Nature Reserve. Nevertheless, the State made a brief reference to the fact that, with the implementation of the 1986 Order, the same protection had been applied in general for all the nature reserves. Nevertheless, this has not been substantiated by any evidence before the Court or during the on-site procedure. This reveals a situation of lack of legal certainty as regards the rights recognized in the said reserve. 195. Also, with regard to the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, the State has not proved that it has effective mechanisms for the participation of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples (infra para. 200); rather, the State created the reserve without the participation of the neighboring Kaliña and Lokono communities. 196. In this regard, the Court recalls that Article 23 of the American Convention establishes that everyone must enjoy the rights and opportunities “to take part in the conduct of public affairs […].” In this sense, the participation of the indigenous communities in the conservation of the environment is not only a matter of public interest, but also part of the exercise of their right as indigenous peoples “to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, […] in accordance with their own procedures and […] institutions”235 (supra paras. 178 and 180). 197. Based on the above, the Court finds that, for the effects of this case, no violation has been constituted by the lack of exclusive management and monitoring of the nature reserves by the indigenous peoples. However, the absence of explicit mechanisms that guarantee the access, use and effective participation of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples in the conservation of the said nature reserves and the benefits these reserves yield constitutes a violation of the obligation to adopt the necessary provisions to make such measures effective in order to ensure the rights to collective property, to cultural identity, and to political rights, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples. iv) Conclusion on the restrictions in the nature reserves 198. In sum, the Court finds that the State has violated the victims’ rights to collective property, cultural identity and participation in public matters, mainly by preventing their effective participation, and the access to part of their traditional territory and natural resources, in the Galibi and Wane Kreek nature reserves, as well as by failing to guarantee, effectively, the traditional territory of the communities that has been affected by the environmental degradation within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve (infra paras. 217 to 222), which constitutes a violation of Articles 21, 2 and 23 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples and their members. 235 Cf. Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra. 52