37 114. The Court went on to hold that Suriname had “not complied with its duty to give domestic legal effect to the members of the Saramaka people’s property rights in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention… .”209 115. In this case, the issuance of land titles does not satisfy the balancing test established by the Inter-American Court for cases in which the collective rights of indigenous peoples are coexistent with the private property rights of non-indigenous individuals over the same lands.210 However, this full analysis is unnecessary in this case, since the State has failed to satisfy the first element (recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples) of the balancing test. Moreover, the InterAmerican Court has stated that the duty to protect the property rights of tribal and indigenous peoples “requires the State to both accept and disseminate information, and entails constant communication between the parties.” 211 The IACHR considers that the State’s failure to provide information regarding which titles have been issued to non-indigenous individuals and over which plots of land violates the Kaliña and Lokono People’s property rights over their ancestral lands, as they have a right to be informed regarding how their lands are being affected by acts authorized by the State. 116. For these reasons, the Inter-American Commission concludes that Suriname has violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the prejudice of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples by issuing and maintaining land titles, long-term leases, and lease holds to non-indigenous individuals in the ancestral lands of the Kaliña and Lokono without consulting them.212 b. Granting of Mining Concessions and Other Activities 117. The petitioners also claim that Suriname has granted concessions and permits to conduct mining and other extractive activities in their ancestral territories without prior consultation, in violation of their rights under Article 21 of the American Convention. Suriname argues that the mining concession was granted before it acceded to the American Convention, and 209 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. 116 (internal citations omitted). 210 For instance, the State has not explained whether it considers the right to own vacation homes to trump the collective right of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands, territories and natural resources (proportionality). Also, the State has not explained whether alternative plots in non-indigenous lands could be made available for these vacation homes (necessity). 211 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2011, para. 133 (“[I]n ensuring the effective participation of members of the Saramaka people in development or investment plans within their territory, the State has a duty to actively consult with said community according to their customs and traditions … This duty requires the State to both accept and disseminate information, and entails constant communication between the parties.”). In this case, there has been no such dissemination of information or constant communication between from the State to the petitioners, despite their repeated requests for information. 212 The Inter-American Court has stated that “the members of indigenous peoples who have unwillingly lost possession of their lands, when those lands have been lawfully transferred to innocent third parties, are entitled to restitution thereof or to obtain other lands of equal ext3nsion and quality.” I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 128; see also 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. 133.