34 of the indigenous peoples are based, above all, on their unique relationship with their traditional lands, so that as long as this relationship exists, the right to claim those lands remains in force.”193 According to Inter-American jurisprudence, thus, the Kaliña and Lokono retain their rights over their ancestral lands. 107. Suriname’s next argument in this connection is that the issuance of land titles does not have a significant impact on the Kaliña and Lokono’s traditional lifestyle. The Inter-American Commission has previously explained that “indigenous and tribal peoples and their members have a right to have their territory reserved for them, and to be free from settlements or presence of third parties or non-indigenous colonizers within their territories. The State has a corresponding obligation to prevent the invasion or colonization of indigenous or tribal territory by other persons, and to carry out the necessary actions to relocate those non-indigenous inhabitants of the territory who have settled there.”194 Although the State claims that there is little interference with the traditional use of the land by these “holiday citizens” who maintain vacation homes in the indigenous villages, it has not provided specific information regarding when such titles were issued, to who they were issued, or what plots of land they cover. The petitioners have presented evidence to prove that they have been forbidden from accessing certain areas in their traditional territory, and have not received collective title to their ancestral lands. There have also been instances in which non-indigenous title-holders have secured the assistance of the Surinamese courts to assert their property rights to the exclusion of those of the indigenous members of the Wan Shi Sha village, for instance.195 108. The Inter-American system of human rights has developed standards to resolve conflicts or interferences between private non-indigenous property rights and collective indigenous property rights. In the case of Xámkok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay,196 the Court summarized Inter-American jurisprudence on collective ownership of indigenous lands, highlighting the following components of that right: (i) the traditional possession by the indigenous peoples of their lands has the same effects as a title of full ownership granted by the State;197 (ii) traditional ownership grants the indigenous peoples the right to demand official recognition of their ownership and its registration;198 193 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. 112. 194 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, para. 114. 195 Annex 6. Petition, para. 76, citing Tjan A Sjin v. Zaalman and Others, Cantonal Court, First Canton, Paramaribo, May 21, 1998; Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, Annex II, Affidavit of Rudy Emanuel Strijk, p. 1. 196 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. 109. 197 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 101, para. 151, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 128. 198 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. 109 (citing Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 101, para. 151, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 128).