A/HRC/36/56 plan process for Lake Bogoria and adopted a roadmap, including key recommendations and ways forward. 38. Apart from its decisions, the African regional human rights mechanisms contribute to achieving the goals of the Declaration in other ways, including through resolutions on climate change and World Heritage Sites in Africa; participation in the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples; and active participation in reviewing the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework. 39. The inter-American human rights system has made important contributions to the development of international law on indigenous rights, citing the Declaration, adding value, legal analysis and further legitimizing its contents. In the case of Saramaka People v. Suriname,37 of November 2007, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 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 (i.e., possession was sufficient). 40. While that judgment appears to have been partially implemented,38 the most crucial measures concerning new legislation, non-repetition and the granting of a title do not appear to have been realized. Worryingly, it is reported that Suriname has continued to grant new concessions within the Saramaka community’s territory since the judgment was rendered. 39 In 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination communicated its concern to Suriname about the lack of implementation of the most essential parts of the judgment.40 The Court continues to supervise the full implementation of its decision. 41. In Xákmok Kásek v. Paraguay, of 24 August 2010,41 relating to the expulsion of an indigenous community, the Court found several violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. The case strengthens the Court’s position on the existence of a right to property of indigenous peoples under certain circumstances without official title, and confirmed its jurisprudence on the relationship between land and the survival of a community when the land is used for economic, cultural, social or religious purposes. The Court also recognized a relationship between the right to life and the rights to water, education and food, among others. Disappointingly, it would appear that the Kásek community of Paraguay was only able to re-occupy their respective historic lands by force.42 42. In Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador,43 following damage caused by a company (contracted with the State) conducting seismic exploration on Sarayaku lands, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found numerous violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. Notably, it reiterated its jurisprudence that consultations should be undertaken with good faith, through culturally adequate procedures, with the aim of reaching an agreement, and the consultation should be prior, informed and culturally appropriate. It established that consultation was the duty of the State and could not be delegated to third parties. In its deliberations, the Court made reference to articles 15 (2), 17 (2), 19, 30 (2), 32 (2), 36 (2) and 38 of the Declaration. 43. In The Maya Leaders Alliance v. The Attorney General of Belize,44 the Caribbean Court of Justice affirmed the rights of the Mayan indigenous communities over their traditional lands and indicated that no concessions should be granted for exploitation of 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 See www.worldcourts.com/iacthr/eng/decisions/2008.08.12_Saramaka_v_Suriname.pdf. See www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2014/case-saramaka-people-v-suriname. See CCPR/C/SUR/CO/3, para. 47. See CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-15, para. 29. See www.worldcourts.com/iacthr/eng/decisions/2010.08.24_Xakmok_Kasek_v_Paraguay.pdf. See Open Society Justice Initiative, “The Impacts of Strategic Litigation on Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights” (Nairobi, 21-22 June 2016). Available from www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/ files/slip-landrights-nairobi-20161014.pdf. See www.escr-net.org/sites/default/files/Court%20Decision%20_English_.pdf. See www.elaw.org/system/files/bz.mayaleaders_0.pdf. 11