Saramaka Vs. Suriname
Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Caterina De Luca, Cira Della Porta, Nada Belhseine International and European Law of 21st Century "Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli"
The inter-American commission on human rights
THE POWERS OF INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS the inter-American system for the protection of human rights was first institutionalized with the establishment of the inter-American commission on human rights (IACHR) IN 1959 by resolution VIII. The statute of the IACHR adopted in 1960 provided that the IACHR would make recommendations to governments of the OAS (Organization of American States) member states for the adoption of appropriate
In order to fulfil its duties under article 18 of its statute the inter-American commission on human Rights also decided to appoint a number of rapporteurs, on issues such as the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of women, the rights of children, or the rights of Afro-descendants and against racial discrimination.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The powers of inter American court of human rights: A) The advisory function The function of the court to deliver advisory opinions ‘regarding the interpretation of [the ACHR] or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states’. this advisory competence has proved of great importance to a number of advisory opinions delivered by the Inter-American court. B) Individual petitions The court may adopt judgments on cases submitted to it either by a State party to the ACHR or by the inter American commission on human rights, provided the defending State party has recognized the jurisdiction on the court.
If the case is transmitted to the court the court shall receive memorials from the commission the representatives of the petitioner and states all of which also take part in the hearings.
If the case is not presented to the court the commission publishes a second report as provided for in article 51ACHR
In the international scenario, the term "indigenous people" has been developed by the two Conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO), containing the difference between indigenous communities and minorities, based on the peculiarity of the criterion of "ancestrality".
Article 1 of the the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes indigenous peoples the full spectrum of fundamental freedoms of individual and collective rights guaranteed by International law. In this sense, the Declaration renewed the previous ILO Conventions, introducing the concepts of "self-determination", "self-identification" and "decolonization".
Procedure
The State adopts the Forest Management Act. State must only respect rights of tribal inhabitants “as much as possible.”
1990's
1987
The State of Suriname grants logging and mining contracts in the Saramaka Territory, without consulting the Saramaka people.
The State adopts a new Constitution that does not explicitly guarantee land rights.
1992
BEFORE THE Interamerican COMMISSION of Human Rights
The Commission adopts Precautionary Measures, and requests the State to suspend all concessions.
2006
2000
The Commission's verdict was that the State violated:
- Right to Property
- Right to Judicial Protection
- Obligation to Respect Rights
- Domestic Legal Effect
The Saramaka people submit a petition to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: rights to property, cultural integrity, and due process.
2002
BEFORE THE Interamerican Court of Human Rights
The Commission submits the case to the Court after the State failed to adopt its recommendations...
The Court unanimously dismisses the State’s preliminary objections.
2006
The State submits preliminary objections: Petitioners lack of legal standing before the Commission and the Court; irregularities occurred during the proceedings; ...
2007
November 28, 2007: The Court issues its Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.The Court decided that although the Saramakas were not an indigenous community, they had certain resemblances with traditional indigenous communities and therefore enjoyed the same rights. As a consequence, they did not need a title in order to own the lands (possession was sufficient).
The court found unanimously that Suriname had violated:
Article 21 in relation to articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Saramaka people, because:
- The Court’s jurisprudence regarding indigenous peoples’ right to communal property applied to the Saramaka people as a tribal community;
- The state failed in the recognition of the Saramaka peoples’ property rights;
- The state did not guarantee the effective participation of the Saramaka people with regard to the development of the territory
The state also violated:
- Article 3 "right to juridical personality", in relation to:
- articles 1 "obligation to respect rights",
- 2 "domestic legal effect",
- 21 "right to property",
- and also article 25 "right to judicial protection"
The court indicated the judgement itself constituting a per se form of reparation and also a form of satisfaction that recognized that the state violated the rights of the members of the Saramaka people.
The court ordered the state:
- to delimit and to title the Saramaka territory;
- to review concessions to mining and logging companies in the light of the judgement;
- to recognize the Saramaka peoples' collective juridical capacity;
- to remove or ament current legal provisions that impede the Saramaka peoples' protection of the right of property;
- to adopt legislations to provide the members of the Saramaka people with effective recourse to enforce their right to the use and enjoyment of their communal property
The state must designate representatives of an implementation committee to decide how community development fund projects will be implemented within six months. The state must also submit a report to the court on the measures adopted in compliance of the judgement within one year:
- The judgement has been partially implemented.
- The new legislation and other measures have not been ensured as well as the granting of title.
- On may 2013, the representative of Saramaka people accused the state to have taken actions to intimidate and coerce the Saramaka to renounce their legal representatives.
REFERENCES
- Olivier de schutter, International Human Rights Law, 2014, Cambridge University Press.
- I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007 Series C No.172. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_172_ing.pdf
- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
- Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Conventions, 1957 (No.107); 1989 (No. 169)
Thanks!
Saramaka vs Suriname
caterina180199
Created on April 22, 2021
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Audio tutorial
View
Pechakucha Presentation
View
Desktop Workspace
View
Decades Presentation
View
Psychology Presentation
View
Medical Dna Presentation
View
Geometric Project Presentation
Explore all templates
Transcript
Saramaka Vs. Suriname
Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Caterina De Luca, Cira Della Porta, Nada Belhseine International and European Law of 21st Century "Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli"
The inter-American commission on human rights
THE POWERS OF INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS the inter-American system for the protection of human rights was first institutionalized with the establishment of the inter-American commission on human rights (IACHR) IN 1959 by resolution VIII. The statute of the IACHR adopted in 1960 provided that the IACHR would make recommendations to governments of the OAS (Organization of American States) member states for the adoption of appropriate
In order to fulfil its duties under article 18 of its statute the inter-American commission on human Rights also decided to appoint a number of rapporteurs, on issues such as the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of women, the rights of children, or the rights of Afro-descendants and against racial discrimination.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The powers of inter American court of human rights: A) The advisory function The function of the court to deliver advisory opinions ‘regarding the interpretation of [the ACHR] or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states’. this advisory competence has proved of great importance to a number of advisory opinions delivered by the Inter-American court. B) Individual petitions The court may adopt judgments on cases submitted to it either by a State party to the ACHR or by the inter American commission on human rights, provided the defending State party has recognized the jurisdiction on the court.
If the case is transmitted to the court the court shall receive memorials from the commission the representatives of the petitioner and states all of which also take part in the hearings.
If the case is not presented to the court the commission publishes a second report as provided for in article 51ACHR
In the international scenario, the term "indigenous people" has been developed by the two Conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO), containing the difference between indigenous communities and minorities, based on the peculiarity of the criterion of "ancestrality".
Article 1 of the the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes indigenous peoples the full spectrum of fundamental freedoms of individual and collective rights guaranteed by International law. In this sense, the Declaration renewed the previous ILO Conventions, introducing the concepts of "self-determination", "self-identification" and "decolonization".
Procedure
The State adopts the Forest Management Act. State must only respect rights of tribal inhabitants “as much as possible.”
1990's
1987
The State of Suriname grants logging and mining contracts in the Saramaka Territory, without consulting the Saramaka people.
The State adopts a new Constitution that does not explicitly guarantee land rights.
1992
BEFORE THE Interamerican COMMISSION of Human Rights
The Commission adopts Precautionary Measures, and requests the State to suspend all concessions.
2006
2000
The Commission's verdict was that the State violated:
The Saramaka people submit a petition to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: rights to property, cultural integrity, and due process.
2002
BEFORE THE Interamerican Court of Human Rights
The Commission submits the case to the Court after the State failed to adopt its recommendations...
The Court unanimously dismisses the State’s preliminary objections.
2006
The State submits preliminary objections: Petitioners lack of legal standing before the Commission and the Court; irregularities occurred during the proceedings; ...
2007
November 28, 2007: The Court issues its Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.The Court decided that although the Saramakas were not an indigenous community, they had certain resemblances with traditional indigenous communities and therefore enjoyed the same rights. As a consequence, they did not need a title in order to own the lands (possession was sufficient).
The court found unanimously that Suriname had violated:
Article 21 in relation to articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Saramaka people, because:
The state also violated:
The court indicated the judgement itself constituting a per se form of reparation and also a form of satisfaction that recognized that the state violated the rights of the members of the Saramaka people.
The court ordered the state:
The state must designate representatives of an implementation committee to decide how community development fund projects will be implemented within six months. The state must also submit a report to the court on the measures adopted in compliance of the judgement within one year:
REFERENCES
Thanks!