Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T12:58:33.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname

Review products

Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Series C, No. 309. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Athttp://www.corteidh.or.cr. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 25, 2015.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Lucas Lixinski
Lucas Lixinski*
Affiliation:
UNSW Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Keywords

Rights of indigenous peoplescollective rightsrecognition of legal personalityright to communal propertyconflict between nature reserves and indigenous landfree, prior, and informed consultationenvironmental impactrestitution and reparation
Type
International Decisions: Edited by David P. Stewart
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 147 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.