Commissioner of the corresponding district will be advised of this application 279 and, eventually, it will be decided and the applicant will be advised of the decision by the Minister of Spatial Planning, Land and Forestry Management himself.280 The Court has noted that the procedures established in this instrument refer, in general, to the granting of State-owned land to individuals or legal persons who reside in Suriname,281 and are unrelated to specific claims concerning the land of indigenous peoples such as those examined in this case. Moreover, the State did not specify how the procedure could provide satisfactory redress for the violations alleged by the Kaliña and Lokono peoples; particularly, considering that they lack legitimacy to request the award of the land, because the State does not recognize the collective legal personality of the indigenous peoples (supra para. 112). 248. Furthermore, the Court notes that, in his report of August 18, 2011, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples of the United Nations asserted that it was evident that Suriname must adopt legislative provisions or regulations that would provide adequately specific and concrete protections and procedures to secure the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Thus, in light of the judgments delivered by the Court in the Moiwana and Saramaka cases, he recommended that priority should be placed on developing specific legal provisions on two point: (i) a procedure to identify and title indigenous and tribal lands, and (ii) a procedure for consulting with, and seeking consent of, indigenous and tribal peoples for resource extraction and other activities affecting their lands.282 249. Consequently, the Court considers that the norms analyzed in this case do not include administrative or judicial remedies establishing procedures for the protection of the right to collective property of indigenous and tribal peoples. 250. Nevertheless, the Court takes into consideration that, during the public hearing in this case, the State indicated that it was “aware that the laws of Suriname do not yet comply with international standards,” and therefore asked the Court to provide it with guidance in order to resolve the complex issues related to the recognition of the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname. 251. Thus, the Court finds that, pursuant to its case law, as well as to other relevant international standards, in order to ensure the human rights of the indigenous peoples, the domestic remedies should be interpreted and applied taking the following criteria into account: 1. The recognition of collective legal personality as indigenous and tribal peoples,283 as well as individual legal personality as members of such peoples;284 2. The recognition of legal standing to file administrative, judicial or any other type of action collectively, through their representatives, or individually, taking into account their customs and cultural characteristics;285 278 Cf. Article 5 of the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982 (evidence file, folio 2692). 279 Cf. Article 7 of the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982 (evidence file, folio 2693). 280 Cf. Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982 (evidence file, folio 2693). 281 Cf. Article 2 of the Decree Granting State-owned Land of June 15, 1982 (evidence file, folio 2691). 282 Cf. Report of the former Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, of August 18, 2011, paras. 17, 34 and 35. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/SR/A-HRC-18-35Add7_en.pdf. 283 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 172. 284 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 188, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, para. 249. 64