8 declared a violation of Article XVIII of the Declaration; thus, it could not conclude that a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention took place. Arguments of the Commission 35. With regard to the State’s preliminary objection concerning the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Inter-American Commission contended that: a) this objection to admissibility is “extemporaneous”; it was not until after the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 35/02 that the State contested the American Convention’s applicability to the present case; b) because the State raised its admissibility challenges outside of the procedural opportunities provided to the parties litigating before the Commission, the petitioners had no opportunity to respond within the context of those proceedings; c) if the State is arguing that the Commission should have adopted two separate sets of admissibility and merits reports – one concerning claims under the Declaration and the other concerning claims under the Convention – it cites no legal support for such a position. Neither the Convention, nor the Commission’s Statute or Rules of Procedure require such a process, and the principle of procedural economy weighs against it; d) while the State contends that it has effectively been treated as a State Party to the Convention with respect to the entirety of the claims presented in the present case, both the admissibility and merits reports demonstrate that only claims relating to the alleged ongoing denial of justice were addressed under the American Convention. The claims involving the alleged attack and related violations completed on November 29, 1986 were dealt with only under the American Declaration; e) the Commission is not requesting that the Court apply legal norms or jurisdiction retroactively; the Court has full jurisdiction over all acts and omissions subsequent to November 12, 1987; and f) to the extent that the State wishes to controvert the factual and legal basis upon which the Commission grounded its Merits Report No. 35/02 and its subsequent application before the Court, those are issues that should be addressed at the merits phase of the proceedings. Arguments of the representatives 36. The representatives argued in relation to the State’s ratione temporis preliminary objection that: a) the violations alleged before the Court either took place subsequent to Suriname’s ratification of the American Convention and acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction or are of a continuing nature; b) the denial of justice alleged in this case is specifically linked to Suriname’s acts and omissions occurring in 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1997, and continues to the present day;