11. The petitioners further assert that there was unwarranted delay of justice in accordance with Article 37(c) of the Regulations of the IACHR, given that the massacre took place on November 29, 1986, more than 10 years before the petition was filed and yet the court had still not issued a final decision. The petitioners claim that prior to 1992, one could understand why the civil, elected, and judicial authorities should have failed to investigate and administer justice because the Armed Force were in control and democracy was weak. They contend that after that date such reasoning was no longer valid. 12. The petitioners report that in May 1993 a mass grave was found containing a number of corpses of the victims from the village of Moiwana, and that the Ministry of Justice and the police indicated that the legal investigation and prosecution of the matter were not priorities for that administration, and that the country’s economic and social problems took precedence. For its part, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing, declared in a press conference at the time that the Moiwana massacre must be deemed covered by the Amnesty Law that had been passed, and, therefore, was not justiciable. By the same token, the petitioners report that despite identification of several of the corpses (of five to seven adults and two to three children) in the grave as members of the Moiwana community, no measures whatever were adopted. 13. The petitioners also say that the Parliament of Suriname adopted in December 1995 a motion requiring the Executive Branch immediately to open an investigation into several infamous violations committed during the military regime, including the Moiwana massacre, but that no action was taken either. The petitioners also mention that they have repeatedly requested the authorities to adopt measures on the matter, to no avail. The petitioners state that under Surnames law, at the request of a private claimant the Supreme Court, if the request is justified, is required to ask the Attorney General to undertake an investigation into the matter in question. Accordingly, the petitioners made such a request and the President of the Supreme Court informed them that he had solicited information from the Attorney General but that the latter had not provided it to him. The petition claims that the party that won the elections and establishes judicial priorities is under the leadership of Desire Bouterse, the military officer who headed the military regime that carried out the alleged violations, for which reason it is unlikely that the Government will adopt a different attitude. 14. The petitioners attach official documents, together with reports on the situation supporting the foregoing allegations published internationally by governments and non-governmental organizations. For all these reasons they request that the exception to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies be accepted. B. The State 15. Notwithstanding repeated requests by the Commission made on October 30, 1997, June 2,1998, and February 25, 1999, the latter indicating that the Commission will consider the application of Article 42 of its Regulations if no answer were received within 30 days, the State of Suriname did not reply to any of those requests for comments. The Commission considers consequently that the State has not controverted the facts alleged in the petition. IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione tempori and ratione loci of the Commission 16. The petitioners claim that the State of Suriname violated rights of the inhabitants of the village of Moiwana recognized in Articles I, VII, IX, and XXIII of the Declaration; and in Articles 8(1), and 25(1) and 25(2) of the Convention, by facts occurred in the Surnames territory affecting natural persons under Suriname’s jurisdiction. 17. The Commission considers it is competent ratione materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci in this case to analyze the complaint in reference to presumed violations to the Declaration and the Convention. 3