32 a. Issuance of Individual Land Titles, Long-Term Leases and Lease Holds 101. The petitioners claim that Suriname has violated the alleged victims’ Article 21 property rights by issuing land titles to non-indigenous individuals in their ancestral territories, specifically in the villages of Erowarte, Pierrekondre, Tapuku and Wan Shi Sha, and without conducting a prior consultation or providing any compensation. Suriname first responds that the land titles were issued before it acceded to the American Convention, so it cannot be held liable for acts committed prior to accession. It also argues that these titles were granted at a time when these areas were not inhabited by the alleged victims, that the indigenous peoples have tacitly consented to the issuance of these titles because they did not complain for many years, and that the issuance of the titles does not interfere with the Kaliña and Lokono’s exercise of their rights and traditional activities. It also alleges that the individuals who have received these titles did so in good faith, and their interests should prevail over those of the alleged victims. 102. The Commission already explained why it has jurisdiction to decide whether the land titles issued before Suriname’s accession to the American Convention constitute violation of the alleged victims’ rights (see Section V.A.1, supra). The State does not deny that titles, long-term leases, and lease holds have been issued to non-indigenous individuals between 1975—the year of Suriname’s independence—and the date of filing of the petition.183 It is also undisputed that, to date, Kaliña and Lokono village members have no formal legal collective title over the lands they use and occupy.184 103. Suriname also argues that some members of the Kaliña and Lokono communities have left their traditional lifestyle, hold full-time non-traditional jobs, and their lifestyle is “not distinguishable from those of other non-indigenous inhabitants of the greater Albina area.”185 The Inter-American Commission reiterates what it and the Inter-American Court have previously stated: that some members of an indigenous community have been incorporated into the lifestyle of the non-indigenous neighboring communities does not mean that the community is no longer an indigenous community, and does not deprive it of its recognized rights by virtue of being an indigenous people, including those protected by Article 21.186 The Court has also stated that “although the members of the Community do not own the lands claimed, in keeping with this Court’s case law … they have the right to recover them.”187 In other words, the fact that some members of the relevant villages may have led non-indigenous lifestyles, and may have temporarily not physically occupied their territory, does not affect the collective property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples over their territories. Consequently, the IACHR considers that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples retain their property rights over their ancestral lands and territories, pursuant to Article 21 of the American Convention. 183 Annex 6. Petition, para. 74, Annex J, Partial List of Non-Indigenous Title Holders; Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 3, n. 6. Suriname claims that the list provided by the petitioners is “highly misleading,” but does not deny that titles have been issued, or provide an alternative listing of title holders. 184 See Annex 6. Petition, para. 73. 185 Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 2. 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No. 172, para. 164; IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 56/09, December 30, 2009, paras. 37-38. 187 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 111.