On January 28, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) published its decision [3] (only available in Spanish) in Kaliña y Lokono v. Surinam, recognizing two villages’ rights to juridical personality, right of collective ownership of their territory, and their right to environmental protection. The case arose from a claim by two villages, Kaliña and Lokono, arguing that the state had failed to recognize their juridical personality and their right of collective ownership over their traditional territory, to which they hold no legal title. The government had created nature preserves and developed mining sites on the territories, without consulting the villagers and the indigenous population in the area. The commercial activity led to a restriction of access for the inhabitants, damage to the environment, and had a negative impact on their hunting and fishing opportunities. The Court found that Suriname had violated Article 3 of the American Convention on Human Rights [4] (Convention) by failing to recognize the collective legal personality asserted by the indigenous and tribal people in this case. It further noted that the lack of demarcation, delimitation, and failure to award legal title of the territory of Kaliña and Lokono violated the villagers’ collective right to property recognized under Article 21 of the Convention. With regard to the nature preserves, the Court recognized the state’s need to balance environmental protection with the traditional use of these areas by indigenous people and noted that by the very nature of their way of life, they could contribute to preservation and conservation strategies. Finding that the same lack of consultations had affected the mining activities, the Court decided that the state had infringed the villagers’ right to collective property and political participation under Articles 21 and 23 of the Convention. Finally, the Court ruled that there was no effective legislation in place to ensure that indigenous people could assert their right to collective property, and thus found a violation Article 25 of the Convention.