We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017
On November 25, 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) held that the state of Suriname had violated the rights of two indigenous groups by denying recognition of their juridical personality and their entitlement to collective property and judicial protection. In Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, the Court also considered the impact of nature reserves on indigenous land rights, as well as the legitimacy of private titling of property that encroaches on land for which collective title has not been attained. The decision pushes the Court's previous jurisprudence significantly—and somewhat controversially—by asserting that under the American Convention on Human Rights, indigenous peoples are entitled, as collective entities, to recognition of their legal personality. In so doing, the Court challenged ordinary assumptions about the individualized character of most adjudication regarding international human rights and made the possibility of enforcing collective rights more palpable.
1 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 309 (Nov. 25, 2015), at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf [hereinafter Merits].
2 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, OASTS No. 36, 1144 UNTS 123, at https:// www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.htm [hereinafter Convention]. Suriname became a party to the Convention on November 12, 1987.
3 The Kaliña and Lokono Peoples, Report on Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Report No. 79/13, Case 12.639 (July 18, 2013).
4 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 17 (Nov. 28, 2007) [hereinafter Saramaka Merits]; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Interpretation of the Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 185 (Aug. 12, 2008). The Court also relied on its decision in: Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 124 (June 15, 2005).
5 See also, Saramaka Merits, supra note 4, para. 171.
6 Merits, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, para. 1 [hereinafter Joint Concurring Opinion].
7 Merits, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Alberto Pérez, para. 1 [hereinafter Partially Dissenting Opinion].
8 See, e.g., Apirana Mahuika v. New Zealand, Communication No. 547/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (UN H.R. Comm. 2000) (concerning Maori fisheries); A. B. v. Italy, Communication No. 413/1990, UN Doc. CCPR/C/40/D/413/1990 (UN H.R. Comm. 1990) (concerning the German minority in South Tirol).
9 Partially Dissenting Opinion, paras. 3–5.
10 Entitlement of Legal Entities to Hold Rights Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, Advisory Opinion OC-22/16, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2016).
11 Joint Concurring Opinion, paras. 4–16.
12 Id., para. 7.
13 Id., para. 12.
