36 111. The Court has also explained that restrictions on the property rights of indigenous peoples must be a) previously established by law; b) necessary; c) proportional, and d) have as their purpose the attainment of a legitimate goal in a democratic society.204 Suriname’s arguments in this connection focus on the fact that the land titles were previously issued by law, that they are proportional, since these are only holiday citizens, and that they are necessary to achieve the goal of protecting property rights.205 The petitioners claim, as a starting point, that since Suriname does not recognize the legal rights of indigenous peoples, it cannot, therefore, legitimately restrict them.206 112. The Commission considers that given the special relationship that exists between indigenous peoples and their territories, and the recognized need to preserve such relationship, the protection of indigenous peoples’ property rights must be approached differently than the property rights of non-indigenous peoples. The IACHR has previously stated that legitimate restrictions on the Article 21 rights of indigenous peoples presuppose “the recognition of such collective property rights, and secondly, the balancing of such rights against the public interest imperative of the State.”207 In this case, Suriname has acknowledged that its domestic legislation does not recognize the collective property rights of indigenous peoples.208 In fact, there is no disagreement between the parties on the fact that the laws of Suriname neither recognize nor guarantee the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname to own their lands, territories, and natural resources. As mentioned above, this lack of recognition constitutes a violation of Article 21. 113. In the case of Saramaka, when analyzing Suriname’s legal framework regarding indigenous peoples, the Inter-American Court stated: the State’s legal framework merely grants the members of the Saramaka people a privilege to use land, which does not guarantee the right to effectively control their territory without outside interference. The Court has previously held that, rather than a privilege to use the land, which can be taken away by the State or trumped by real property rights of third parties, members of indigenous and tribal peoples must obtain title to their territory in order to guarantee its permanent use and enjoyment. This title must be recognized and respected, not only in practice, but also in law, in order to ensure its legal certainty. In order to obtain such title, the territory traditionally used and occupied by the members of the Saramaka people must first be delimited and demarcated, in consultation with such people and other neighboring peoples. 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 215, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, para. 144; see also 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. 127. 205 See Submission of Suriname, September 12, 2008, pp. 10, 12-13. 206 Submission of petitioners, October 29, 2008, pp. 4-5. 207 Report No. 09/06, Case of Twelve Saramaka Clans, Case 12,388 (Suriname), IACHR, March 2, 2006, para. 188. 208 Submission of Suriname, March 22, 2008, p. 1.