In the Moiwana Village v. Suriname case, in 2005, the Court ruled in favour of the Africandescended N’djuka community forcibly expelled from their traditional lands around the Moiwana village and unable as a consequence to practice their culture. While it was accepted that the N’djuka were not ‘indigenous’ to the territory of Suriname, the important link between their cultural life and the use of lands traditionally inhabited by them since the 17th century was a central factor in the decision. The Court argued that Suriname had violated, inter alia, the collective land rights of the group and ordered that: The State shall adopt such legislative, administrative, and other measures as are necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled, and provide for the members’ use and enjoyment of those territories.82 A similar decision was taken by the Court in 2007 in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname where another Afro-descendant community was recognized to hold collective rights to land because of its status as a “tribal people” and its ancestral connection to the territory in question; the Court reasoned that its jurisprudence with regard to indigenous peoples’ right to property was applicable to this community.83 The case of López-Álvarez v. Honduras provided an innovative interpretation of cultural rights for Afro-descendants. Mr. López-Álvarez was a community leader among the Garífuna Afrodescendants in Honduras. In his case he alleged that state actors had created a false narcotics charge against him as a means of intimidating him and his community during their pursuit of a legal challenge to the State regarding land rights. The Afro-descendant NGO OFRANEH assisted the applicant in bringing his case. The decision was given in favour of Mr. LópezÁlvarez, but of particular interest is the aspect of the case that dealt with the applicant’s right to speak his mother tongue whilst in prison, a right denied him by the prison authorities where he was held. The Court ruled this was a violation of the freedom of thought and expression and an act of discrimination against Mr. López-Álvarez as a member of the Garífuna community, citing that “Language is one of the most important elements of identity of any people, precisely because it guarantees the expression, diffusion, and transmission of their culture”.84 Thus, the case was an effective use of an international institution to challenge the obstruction of the State when Afro-descendants tried to claim their rights and also an important source of jurisprudence on Afro-descendant identity protection. These decisions provide a fertile basis for strengthening domestic law and practice and expanding the jurisprudence of the American Convention on Human Rights to protect members of distinct identity groups. 12.3 MINORITIES IN THE ARAB STATES The concept of minority rights is not widely accepted in Arab States although ethnic and religious pluralism has long been a feature of this region. This is most evident in the concept of dhimmi, a ‘protected minority’, found in Shari’a law, which recognizes the responsibility to give protection to some non-Muslim groups living under Islamic rule. Among the key minority (and/or indigenous) groups across the region are the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, Amazighen in Morocco and Algeria, Dinka in Sudan, Bidouns in Kuwait, Baha’is in Iran, Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Judgement of 15 June 2005; paragraph 233. 82 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgement of 28 November 2007; paragraph 86. 83 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of López-Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgement of 1 February 2006. See especially Chapter IX, paragraphs 157-174. The excerpt is from paragraph 171. 84 168 M A R G I N A L I S E D M I N O R I T I E S I N D E V E LO P M E N T P R O G R A M M I N g