28 indigenous peoples.89 Accordingly, by virtue of the right of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination recognized under said Article 1, they may “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”, and may “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources” so as not to be “deprived of [their] own means of subsistence”.90 Pursuant to Article 29(b) of the American Convention, this Court may not interpret the provisions of Article 21 of the American Convention in a manner that restricts its enjoyment and exercise to a lesser degree than what is recognized in said covenants.91 This Court considers that the same rationale applies to tribal peoples due to the similar social, cultural, and economic characteristics they share with indigenous peoples (supra paras. 80-86)92. 94. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has analyzed the obligations of State Parties to the ICCPR under Article 27 of such instrument, including Suriname, and observed that “minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture[, which] may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with territory and use of its resources. This may particularly be true of members of indigenous communities constituting a minority”.93 95. The above analysis supports an interpretation of Article 21 of the American Convention to the effect of calling for the right of members of indigenous and tribal communities to freely determine and enjoy their own social, cultural and economic development, which includes the right to enjoy their particular spiritual relationship with the territory they have traditionally used and occupied. Thus, in the present case, the right to property protected under Article 21 of the American Convention, interpreted in light of the rights recognized under common Article 1 and Article 27 of the ICCPR, which may not be restricted when interpreting the American Convention, grants to the members of the Saramaka community the right to enjoy property in accordance with their communal tradition. 96. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the present case, the Court thus concludes that the members of the Saramaka people make up a tribal community protected by international human rights law that secures the right to the communal territory they have traditionally used and occupied, derived from their longstanding use and occupation of the land and resources necessary for their physical and cultural survival, and that the State has an obligation to adopt special measures to recognize, respect, protect and guarantee the communal property right of the members of the Saramaka community to said territory. 89 Cf. UNCESCR, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations on Russian Federation (Thirty-first session), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.94, December 12, 2003, para. 11, in which the Committee expressed concern for the “precarious situation of indigenous communities in the State party, affecting their right to self-determination under article 1 of the Covenant.” 90 Common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR. 91 Cf. Article 29 of the American Convention. Cf. also Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 37, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 113-115 (endorsing an interpretation of international human rights instruments that takes into account development in the corpus juris gentium of international human rights law over time and in present day conditions). 92 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 77, para. 133. 93 UNHRC, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27) (Fiftieth session, 1994), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21Rev.1/Add.5, August 4, 1994, paras. 1 and 3.2.