52 c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.284 158. The petitioners claim that Suriname has violated Article 25 of the American Convention by failing to provide timely and effective judicial remedies for violations of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples’ human rights. 159. With regard to indigenous peoples, the Inter-American Court has stated that “it is essential for the States to grant effective protection that takes into account their specificities, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, their customary law, values, and customs.”285 The Court has held that in order to guarantee members of indigenous peoples their right to communal property, States must establish “an effective means with due process guarantees […] for them to claim traditional lands”286 and that “[t]he inexistence of an effective recourse against the violation of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a transgression of the Convention by the State Party in which such a situation occurs.”287 160. In the specific case of Suriname and compliance with Article 25 as it applies to indigenous and tribal peoples, the Court has found that Suriname’s Civil Code does not provide adequate and effective recourse against acts that violate indigenous and tribal people’s rights to communal property;288 that the L-Decree of 1982 and the Mining Decree of 1986 are inadequate and ineffective because they do not offer legal protection to inhabitants of the interior living in indigenous or tribal communities, who do not hold title to their traditional territories;289 and that the Forest Management Act of 1992 does not satisfy the requirement under Article 25 of the American Convention to provide adequate and effective judicial remedies for alleged violations of communal property rights of members of indigenous and tribal peoples.290 As a result, the Court held that Suriname had “violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 21 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Saramaka people, as the aforementioned domestic provisions do not provide adequate and effective legal recourses to protect them against acts that violate their right to property.”291 284 American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25. 285 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. 178 (citing Case of Saramaka Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, para. 63.). 286 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. 178 (citing Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, para. 96.). 287 I/A Court H.R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 113. 288 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, paras. 179-182. 289 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. 183. 290 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. 184. 291 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. 185.