To obtain FPIC, “consent” must be secured through an agreed process of good faith
consultation and cooperation with indigenous and tribal peoples through their own
representative institutions. The process should be grounded in a recognition that the
indigenous and/or tribal peoples are customary landowners. The minimum conditions that
are required to secure consent include that it is “free” from all forms of coercion, undue
influence or pressure, provided “prior” to a decision or action being taken that affects
human rights, and offered on the basis that affected peoples are “informed” of their rights
and the impacts of decisions or actions on those rights. FPIC is not only a question of
process, but also of outcome, and is obtained only when terms are fully respectful of land,
resource and other implicated rights.
That FPIC is a mechanism to safeguard indigenous and tribal peoples’ individual and
collective rights is established in international case law directly relevant to Suriname. The
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the Inter-American Court”) has affirmed the
collective rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname, including collective rights
over lands and natural resources, on the basis of the human rights guarantees provided by
the American Convention on Human Rights. The three judgments affirming these rights
include: Moiwana Village v. Suriname 12 of 2005; Saramaka v. Suriname 13 of 2007; and Kaliña
and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname 14 of 2014.
The Saramaka case of 2007 holds particular relevance for Merian. The Saramaka is one of
the largest Maroon tribes, comprising an estimated 42 percent of Maroon peoples in
Suriname. In the mid-1990s, the Government of Suriname granted timber and mining
concessions in Saramaka territories without consulting their traditional authorities. The
Saramaka took their case to the Inter-American Court. Building upon its jurisprudence in the
previous, landmark case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, the Court affirmed the collective rights
of the Saramaka and ordered the Government of Suriname to recognize those rights. The
government has not yet complied with the substantive elements of the Court’s judgments,
including those parts requiring the demarcation and titling of the tribal communities’ lands
and the development of a law or procedure to carry out that process.
12
Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Judgment of 15 June 2005, Inter-Am Ct. H.R., (Ser. C) No. 124 (2005).
Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment of 28 November 2007, Inter-Am Ct. H.R., (Ser. C) No. 172
(2007).
14
Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Judgment of 15 November 2015, Inter-Am Ct. H.R., (Ser.
C) No. 309 (2015).
13
5