55 indigenous communities and their communal rights to property under Article 21 of the Convention must also apply to the tribal Moiwana community members: their traditional occupancy of Moiwana Village and its surrounding lands – which has been recognized and respected by neighboring N’djuka clans and indigenous communities over the years (supra paragraph 86(4)) – should suffice to obtain State recognition of their ownership. The precise boundaries of that territory, however, may only be determined after due consultation with said neighboring communities (infra paragraph 210). 134. Based on the foregoing, the Moiwana community members may be considered the legitimate owners of their traditional lands; as a consequence, they have the right to the use and enjoyment of that territory. The facts demonstrate, nevertheless, that they have been deprived of this right to the present day as a result of the events of November 1986 and the State’s subsequent failure to investigate those occurrences adequately. 135. In view of the preceding discussion, then, the Court concludes that Suriname violated the right of the Moiwana community members to the communal use and enjoyment of their traditional property. In consequence, the Tribunal holds that the State violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, to the detriment of the Moiwana community members. XII ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) Arguments of the Commission 136. The Commission argued in its application that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and Article 25, of the American Convention, respectively, based upon the following considerations: a) the alleged victims and their families were unable to invoke and exercise their right under Article 25 of the Convention to a simple, prompt and effective judicial recourse for the protection of their rights; b) the efforts of the alleged victims and their families were met with institutional resistance and failed to produce substantive results; consequently, they have been denied not only their right to an effective investigation designed to establish the violations and corresponding responsibility, but also their right to seek reparation for the consequences of those violations; c) the obligation to provide judicial protection is not met simply by the formal existence of legal remedies; rather, states must take specific measures to ensure that judicial protection is effective;