## Facts

- The Saramaka people are a Maroon tribal community living in the Upper Suriname River region, whose social, economic, and spiritual life is tied to traditional lands and natural resources.
- Suriname’s constitutional and statutory framework vested ownership of non-titled lands and natural resources in the State and conditioned compensation and legal protection on registered title, which tribal communities generally lacked.
- In the 1990s, Suriname issued logging and mining concessions within the Saramaka’s traditional territory to private companies without prior consultation with the Saramaka.
- Concession activities allegedly caused forest destruction, water pollution, and restrictions on access to land and resources used for hunting, fishing, and subsistence farming.
- Saramaka representatives petitioned the Inter-American Commission in 2000, alleging violations of communal property and lack of effective judicial remedies.
- The Commission issued a merits report in 2006 finding violations and referred the matter to the Inter-American Court, which issued a combined judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs in 2007.

## Issues

1. Whether the Saramaka, as a tribal people, hold collective property rights in traditional lands and necessary natural resources protected by Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether Suriname violated Articles 21, 1(1), and 2 by failing to recognize and secure those rights and by granting concessions without consultation or consent.
3. Whether the absence of domestic recognition of the Saramaka’s collective juridical personality and lack of effective remedies violated Articles 3 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2.

## Decision

- The Court held the Saramaka are a “tribal people” entitled to communal property protections comparable to those afforded to indigenous peoples under Article 21.
- The Court found Suriname violated Article 21, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, by failing to recognize, delimit, demarcate, and title Saramaka territory and by authorizing concessions without adequate safeguards.
- The Court found violations of Article 3 (juridical personality) and Article 25 (judicial protection), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, due to the State’s failure to recognize the Saramaka as a collective legal subject able to hold title and access effective remedies.
- The Court held concessions are not categorically barred, but any restriction on communal property must not deny the people’s survival as a tribal community and must satisfy specific safeguards.
- Reparations included orders to delimit, demarcate, and title the territory through effective consultation; suspend acts affecting the territory until titling is completed; review existing concessions; reform domestic law; and provide compensation and publication measures.

## Legal Principles

- Article 21 protects communal property of tribal and indigenous peoples, including access to and use of natural resources within traditional territory that are necessary for the people’s physical and cultural survival.
- Traditional possession and customary tenure can be legally equivalent to title for communal property purposes; States must take affirmative measures to delimit, demarcate, and grant collective title consistent with the community’s customs.
- Resource extraction or development affecting communal territory is permissible only under conditions consistent with legality, necessity, proportionality, and the community’s continued survival as a people.
- States must ensure: (1) effective participation through culturally appropriate consultation, and free, prior, and informed consent for large-scale projects with major impacts; (2) benefit-sharing from projects using communal resources; and (3) prior, independent, technically adequate environmental and social impact assessments.
- Failure to recognize a community’s collective juridical personality and to provide accessible, effective remedies to protect communal territory breaches the rights to juridical personality and judicial protection and requires legislative and institutional reform.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized the Saramaka’s enforceable communal property rights as a tribal people and held Suriname responsible for authorizing concessions and maintaining domestic laws that denied effective recognition, participation, and remedies; it required titling and a safeguard regime of consultation/consent, benefit-sharing, and prior impact assessment to prevent development from threatening the community’s survival.


Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 172 (2007)