JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO AND EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF THE KALIÑA AND LOKONO PEOPLES V. SURINAME JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 25, 2015 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) 1. We have prepared this concurring opinion with regard to two issues dealt with in the judgment in the case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, namely: (i) the guarantees of collective property in relation to the mining concession within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, particularly with regard to the right to effective participation through a consultation process, and (ii) the recognition of collective juridical personality. 2. With regard to the first point, in this judgment the Court established that: 200. As previously noted, in 1958, Suriname granted Suralco a mining concession until 2033, for the extraction of bauxite in the eastern part of the country. In 1997, the company started up its operations to extract bauxite from deposits in an area of approximately 100 to 144 hectares, within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, known as Wane Kreek 1 and 2 (supra paras. 88 and 90). Preparatory work, such as the construction of a highway to reach the mine and transport the mineral, was initiated in the mid-1990s (supra para. 89). There is no dispute about the fact that the Kaliña and Lokono peoples played no part in any of these activities and that the corresponding environmental impact assessment was not made (infra para. 213). However, the Court does not have competence in relation to the award of the mining concession in 1958. Nevertheless, the Court is competent to examine measures taken following the entry into force of its jurisdiction; in particular, the extraction operations carried out as of 1997. 201. In this regard, the Court has already established in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname that, under Article 1.1 of the Convention, in order to ensure that the restrictions imposed on the right to property of the indigenous and tribal peoples owing to the issue of concessions within their territory do not entail a denial of their survival, the State must comply with the following three guarantees: “first, it must ensure the effective participation of the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples], in accordance with their customs and traditions, with regard to any development, investment, exploration or extraction plans (hereinafter “development or investment plan”) implemented within [their territory]. Second, the State must ensure that the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples] receive a reasonable benefit from the plan implemented within their territory. Third, the State must ensure that no concession will be granted within their territory until independent and technically-qualified entities, under the State’s supervision, have conducted a prior social and environmental impact assessment. These safeguards are intended to preserve, protect and ensure the special relationship that the members of the [indigenous and tribal peoples] have with their territory, which, in turn, ensures their survival [as an indigenous people].” In the