2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE 1. On December 20, 2002, pursuant to Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted an application against the State of Suriname (hereinafter “the State” or “Suriname”) to the Court, originating from petition No. 11,821, which had been received at the Commission’s Secretariat on June 27, 1997. 2. The Commission submitted the application for the Court to decide whether the State has violated Articles 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of certain former residents of Moiwana Village (infra paragraphs 71-74 and 86(17) for the identification of the alleged victims). Furthermore, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to adopt several monetary and non-monetary reparations measures, as well as to pay the legal costs and fees incurred during both the domestic and international proceedings of the instant case. 3. According to the Commission, on November 29, 1986, members of the armed forces of Suriname attacked the N’djuka Maroon village of Moiwana. State agents allegedly massacred over 40 men, women and children, and razed the village to the ground. Those who escaped the attack supposedly fled into the surrounding forest, and then into exile or internal displacement. Furthermore, as of the date of the application, there allegedly had not been an adequate investigation of the massacre, no one had been prosecuted or punished and the survivors remained displaced from their lands; in consequence, they have been supposedly unable to return to their traditional way of life. Thus, the Commission stated that, while the attack itself predated Suriname’s ratification of the American Convention and its recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, the alleged denial of justice and displacement of the Moiwana community occurring subsequent to the attack comprise the subject matter of the application. II JURISDICTION 4. Suriname has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 12, 1987. On that same date, Suriname also recognized the Court’s jurisdiction as binding. The State has alleged in its preliminary objections that the Court lacks competence to hear the instant case (infra paragraphs 34, 45, 52, 60 and 65). Therefore, the Court shall first decide the preliminary objections submitted by Suriname; subsequently, if justified in law, the Tribunal will proceed to rule on the merits and reparations requested in the present case. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On June 27, 1997 the human rights organization Moiwana ’86 filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission.