administrative or other type of measures necessary to ensure effective exercise of the rights 338 of the indigenous and tribal peoples, pursuant to its obligation to respect and ensure rights established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. E.1 Measures for the recognition of juridical personality, and guarantees of collective property, participation, and access to justice 301. In addition to the measures requested for the Kaliña and Lokono peoples (supra paras. 274 and 275), the Commission also asked that the Court order the State to take the legislative, administrative and any other measures necessary to recognize to the indigenous peoples: (a) juridical personality; (b) the right to collective property; (c) the right to be consulted with regard to any development, investment or conservation projects, and (d) the right to judicial protection to defend their rights vis-à-vis their traditional territories. The Commission also considered that the State should eliminate the legal provisions that prevented protection of the right to property, and should review the existing legal framework in order to amend any provisions that were contrary to the rights of the peoples which have been examined in this case. 302. In addition to the measures requested in favor of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples (supra para. 276), the representatives asked that the Court order the State to take all the legislative, administrative or any other measures necessary to recognize and ensure collective access to justice (legal standing) and the right to effective judicial remedies to the indigenous peoples. The representatives also requested the review, adoption or amendment of the legislation related to protected areas, mining, logging, hunting and forests to ensure their consistency with the victims’ rights. 303. The State indicated that: (a) Surinamese law was unfamiliar with the concept of attributing legal personality as a collective to ethnic groups; thus, the fact that this was not regulated in the Civil Code could not be attributed to the State. Nevertheless, it indicated that, in the context of examining the impact that this recognition would have on the Surinamese legal system, the State was in the process of enacting the traditional authorities act, which would provide a solution to the problem of recognition of juridical personality; (b) regarding the claim to lands, control over them and their natural resources could not be handed over to all the indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname as this would have a disastrous effect on the country’s economy; (c) under the laws of Suriname, the rights and the interests of the indigenous peoples and the Maroons were taken into consideration when the State took a decision to grant a concession, and referred to article 41 of the Forestry Management Act and to article 25(1) of the Mining Decree (supra para. 209), and (d) starting on September 27, 2013, various measures were being taken to adopt a protocol on free, prior and informed consent, but delays had occurred owing to factors that can be attributed to both the State and the indigenous communities (supra para. 210). Nevertheless, it expressed its willingness to continue working to improve consultations with the indigenous communities. 304. The Court has found the State responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 3, 21, 23 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 13 of the Convention, owing to: (a) its domestic law not recognizing collective juridical personality; (b) the failure to recognize collective property; (c) the absence of mechanisms for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of territories; (d) the lack of mechanisms that ensure effective participation, by a consultation 338 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2005. Series C No. 293, para. 389. 77