44 to guarantee their subsistence as peoples.245 For the Inter-American Court, Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), is violated when the State does not conduct or supervise environmental and social assessments prior to the granting of concessions.246 It has also determined that environmental and social impact studies must be conducted prior to approval of the respective plans,247 and it requires States to allow indigenous peoples to take part in those prior social and environmental impact studies.248 In general terms, social and environmental impact assessments “must respect the traditions and culture [of the indigenous or tribal] people concerned,”249 and their findings must be shared with the communities so that they can make an informed decision. (ii) Consultation and consent with the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples 132. In this case, Suriname acknowledges that no consultation of any kind was conducted with the Kaliña and Lokono at the time the concession was granted.250 Similarly, it has been proven that the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples were not consulted when the specific mining activities were planned in the 1990s, or when they commenced in 1997, both of which are subsequent acts to Suriname’s incorporation to the OAS and its accession to the American Convention.251 In addition, contrary to the State’s arguments, it has been proven (see paragraphs 68-69) that the bauxite mining activities has had a significant negative impact on the Kaliña and Lokono’s traditional territory. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that Suriname has violated the Article 21 property rights of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples, in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the same treaty, by failing to conduct a free, prior and informed consultation, and by failing to cease and redress the effects of the 245 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 40. IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, para. 254. 246 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. 154. 247 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 41. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 205206. 248 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 133; I/A Court H.R, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 16. 249 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008 Series C No. 185, para. 41. 250 The lack of such a consultation, even if it took place before Suriname acceded to the American Convention, can be cited “to place into the proper context those alleged violations over which the [Court] actually exercises jurisdiction.” I/A Court H.R., Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C No. 124, para. 70. 251 At the hearing held on March 27, 2012 at the facilities of the IACHR, the State of Suriname indicated that generally when a large-scale project is planned in indigenous territories, the State consults with the relevant communities. IACHR, Hearing on the Merits, March 27, 2012, IACHR 144 Period of Sessions, Case 12.639 – Kaliña and Lokono Peoples, Suriname. However, Suriname has not provided evidence that any such consultation was conducted with the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples. In this case, it is not necessary to analyze whether the free, prior and informed consent of the Kaliña and Lokono was obtained in order to conduct mining activities, since no consultation was conducted at all. In Saramaka, the Inter-American Court ordered Suriname to review concessions previously granted in lights of the terms of the Saramaka udgment. 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. 214(5).