In 2007, the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to have their case against the state of Suriname presented before the Inter-American Court. The primary complaints brought forth by the indigenous people was in regard to their lack of recognized ownership to the land and territory they have traditionally occupied, the distribution of said land to non-indigenous peoples – such as through mining concessions-, and the establishment of environmentally protected areas within their territory without consent. The failure to resolve these infringements are the direct result of the lack of juridical personality, constricting the necessary means to the rights of participation, consultation and consent. The Commission agreed to accept the case and allow presentation before the court, citing violations to international standards. 

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples who was brought before the Court as an expert to review the case, called attention upon the Convention on Biological Diversity that was ratified in 2004. In respect to environmentally protected areas, an area of major importance to both parties, the Convention requires the state to protect the cultural use of the land and it’s resources by the indigenous peoples, and makes collaboration, consultation and consent prior to any activity a necessity.

The standard driving the case was referenced as the new paradigm for the application of indigenous rights when the issue of land use is present. This paradigm can be simply stated as being “based on full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, in relation to all existing and future protected areas.” (1)   The actions taken by Suriname clearly delineated from this line of reasoning, and restitution was recommended.

The case shows a clear lack of responsibility to international policy by Suriname, norms that the state agreed to recognize. Lack of consent and consultation became violations of 3 related articles in particular (3, 21, 25) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The improper issuance of land titles, concessions for mining operations and the establishment of natural reserves should not have been allowed to develop without consultation and consent of the land’s owners, activities that threaten a people’s way of life.

While examining the issue of natural reserves, the expert presented before the court cited a study that concluded that the participation of indigenous groups was paramount when pursuing successful outcomes for the protection of biodiversity. Not only would these means of pursuit produce the most environmentally effective endings, but also be of social importance to keep tranquility in place amongst parties involved.

The violations and missteps of the state of Suriname are clear in this case, as should be the ruling in favor of the petitioners. Proper recognition of the indigenous peoples to their territories, including their juridical personality would lead to consultation and involvement in future territorial activity, with the necessary consent present in future cases. Precedent and international law point to this conclusion and should be used in the determination of the outcome.

Note: 

(1) UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Feb 3, 2015.