Building upon its earlier jurisprudence, in the case of Saramaka v. Suriname, the InterAmerican Court recognized the rights of Maroon Saramaka communities to lands and
resources on the basis of their traditional tenure, again in accordance with the property
right protections in Article 21 of the American Convention of Human Rights. 71 The Court
ordered Suriname, through meaningful consultations, to “delimit, demarcate, and grant
collective title” over Saramaka traditional territory in accordance with their customary laws;
and to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to legally recognize
this collective title. 72 Notably, the Court further ordered Suriname to “adopt legislative,
administrative and other measures necessary to recognize and ensure the right of the
Saramaka people, […] when necessary, to give or withhold their free, informed and prior
consent, with regards to development or investment projects that may affect their
territory,” 73 and to grant the Saramaka peoples legal recognition as a collective juridical
body. 74
In Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, the most recent of the cases, the Inter-American
Court again observed institutional impediments to, and abuses of, indigenous peoples’
collective property rights. The Court, in response to Suriname’s continued failure to
recognize the juridical personality of indigenous peoples, ordered Suriname, among other
measures, to: grant legal recognition of the collective juridical personality of the Kaliña and
Lokono peoples; adopt measures to protect the territory in which both peoples exercise
communal ownership; establish how the territorial rights of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples
will be protected in cases where the land claimed is owned by the State or third parties; and
take steps to delimit, demarcate, and grant both peoples collective title to the lands and
territories they have traditionally occupied and used. 75
The Inter-American Court’s judgments in these cases establish international legal
responsibility on the part of the Government of Suriname with regard to indigenous and
tribal peoples under the American Convention on Human Rights.76 Suriname has not yet
complied with the most 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. In failing to comply with the
Court’s requirements in these cases, the Government of Suriname continues to deny
71
See for e.g. Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. v. Nicaragua, 79 Inter-Am. C.H.R.
Ser. C (2001);
Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, 125 Ser. C (2005); Sawhoyamaxa
Indigenous
Community v. Paraguay, 146 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Ser. C (2006).
72
Saramaka, para. 214(5)(7).
73
Id., para. 214(8).
74
Id., para. 214(6).
75
Kaliña and Lokono, para. 329(5)(6)(7).
76
While the cases relate to specific tribal communities, the principles affirming indigenous land and
resource rights apply generally to all the indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname.