A/71/229 28. Of particular importance to the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation is the judgment of the Court in the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname case in November 2015, relating to three nature reserves established on their ancestral territory which partly prevented their access. 20 The judgment ordered the State to implement a series of guarantees of non -repetition, including the legal recognition of territorial and other rights of all indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname. The Court furthermore concluded that respect for the rights of indigenous peoples may have a positive impact on environmental conservation and therefore the rights of indigenous peoples and international environmental laws should be seen as complementary rather than exclusionary rights. In February 2015, the Special Rapporteur acted as an expert witness in the case and emphasized indigenous peoples’ right to effective participation in conservation management and their right to restitution for lands incorporated into protected areas without their consent. She underlined three basic principles in relation to protected areas, as follows: first, that States must recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal l ands, territories and resources; second, that decision-making in relation to all aspects of protected areas must take place with indigenous peoples’ effective participation and consent where any restrictions on their rights may be proposed; and third, that indigenous peoples have a right to restitution and other forms of redress where their lands have been incorporated into protected areas without their consent. 21 29. In the African human rights system, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights held in the case of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya 22 that the rights of the Endorois had been violated when they were denied access to their traditional lands after the lands were turned into a game reserve in 1973. The Commission found that the Kenyan State was obliged to recognize the communal land rights of the Endorois indigenous peoples and provide compensation and restitution by returning the lands or by providing alternative lands of equal extent and quality in agreement with the indigenous community. Importantly, the Commission found that, although their land had become a game reserve, the Endorois were its ancestral guardians and thus best equipped to maintain its delicate ecosystem and that their alienation from their land threatened their cultural survival and thus the encroachment was not proportionate to the public need. __________________ 20 21 22 12/25 Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Judgment, 25 November 2015, ser. C, No. 309. The Court found Suriname responsible for violations of the right to recognition of juridical personality (article 3 of the American Convention on Human Rights); the right to collective property and political rights (articles 21 and 23 of the American Convention); and the right to judicial protection (article 25 of the American Convention). Expert testimony of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli Corpuz, before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights on the case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, on 3 February 2015, available from http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/ index.php/en/press-releases/58-unsrip-conservation-policies. African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, communication No. 276/2003, 25 November 2009. The Commission found violations of the right to property (article 14 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights), the right as peoples to freely dispose of its wealth and natural resources (article 21 of the African Charter) and the right to development (article 22 of the African Charter). 16-13163