289 Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello. 290 HRC, General Comment No. 25, supra 238, para. 15. 291 Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia, ACHPR, Comm. No. 211/98 (2001). 292 Ibid., para. 72. 293 IACtHR, Series C No. 127 (23 June 2005). 294 Article 23 establishes that every citizen shall enjoy the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, and to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his or her country 295 Ibid., para. 195. 296 Ibid., para. 201. 297 The IACtHR noted that ‘participation in public affairs of organizations other than parties … [may be] essential to guarantee legitimate political expression and necessary in the case of groups of citizens who, otherwise, would be excluded from this participation.’ Ibid., para. 217. 298 The following countries are parties to the ACHR: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. Among those, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela are also subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the IACtHR. 299 Article 21 of the Convention reads as follow: (1) Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society; (2) No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law; (3) Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law. 300 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, IACtHR, Series C 79 (2001). 301 Comunidad Indigena Yakye Axa v Paraguay, IACtHR, Series C 125 (2005), paras 124, 137; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, IACtHR, Series C 146 (2006), paras 118–21; Saramaka People v Suriname, IACtHR, Series C 172 (2007), paras 87–96. 302 In the words of the IACtHR in Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, para. 149, supra 300: among indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community. Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations. 303 Ibid. 304 Ibid. 305 Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, IACHR, Report no. 75/02 (merits decision of 27 December 2002), para.130; Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District – Belize, Case 12.053, IACHR, Report no. 40/04 (merits decision of 12 October 2004). 56 306 See, for example, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District – Belize, ibid., para. 117. 307 Ibid., para. 132. 308 See Garifuna Community of Cayos Cochinos and its members v Honduras, IACHR, Report no. 39/07 on admissibility, 24 July 2007. See also Saramaka People v Suriname, IACtHR, Series C 172 (2007) paras 84, 96; Moiwana Community v Suriname, IACtHR, Series C No. 124 (2005), paras 86(6), 131–4. 309 Namely ILO Conventions No. 107 and 169. ILO Convention No. 107 is now closed to ratification. 310 Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, IACtHR, Series C 146 (2006), para. 128. 311 Ibid. 312 Ibid., para. 131. 313 Ibid. 314 Comunidad Indigena Yakye Axa v Paraguay, IACtHR, Series C 125 (2005), para. 143. 315 Ibid., para. 144 316 Accordingly, the IACtHR held: ‘the necessity of legally established restrictions will depend on whether they are geared toward satisfying an imperative public interest’. Therefore, it would be insufficient ‘to prove, for example, that the law fulfils a useful or timely purpose’. Furthermore, the IACtHR explained that the criterion of proportionality is ‘based on the restriction being closely adjusted to the attainment of a legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible with the effective exercise of the restricted right’. Finally, the IACtHR stated that: ‘for the restrictions to be compatible with the Convention, they must be justified by collective objectives that, because of their importance, clearly prevail over the necessity of full enjoyment of the restricted right’. This is in line with the general prescription of Article 21(1) according to which the law may subordinate the use and enjoyment of property to the interest of society. Ibid., para. 145. 317 Ibid., para. 146. 318 Ibid., para. 147. 319 Ibid., para. 148. 320 Ibid., para. 149. 321 Saramaka People v Suriname, IACtHR, Series C 172 (2007), para. 122. 322 Ibid., para. 122. 323 Ibid., paras 125–8. 324 Ibid., para. 126. 325 Ibid., para. 127. 326 Ibid., para. 128. 327 Ibid., para. 158. 328 In the Saramaka v Suriname case, the question arose with regard to logging and mining activities. These were not considered large-scale developments, and therefore the IACtHR simply established that Suriname had failed to consult the Saramaka community. 329 Ibid., para. 137. 330 It should be noted that the Saramaka case involved smallscale development. Thus, the IACtHR did not have the chance to further elaborate on the issues discussed here. 331 Ibid., paras 134–7. In a later judgment on the case, the IACtHR referred to the obligation upon the state to supervise prior environmental and social impact assessments in order to determine whether any individual or cumulative effects may be expected to derive from existing and future activities (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of 12 August 2008, Series C No. 185, para. 41). 332 With regard to the ILO Convention No. 169, see Articles 6(2) and 16(2). Article 20 of the then UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples established that states shall obtain the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned before adopting and implementing MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE