18. Suriname, as a member state of the OAS is bound both to the Declaration since the beginning to its membership to the OAS on June 8, 1977; and to the Convention which it has ratified on November 12¸1987. The original events that originated the petition, specifically the alleged attack on the village of Moiwana and the extrajudicial executions and other violations denounced, would have happened on November 29, 1986, while the Declaration was in force in regard to Suriname. In reference to the Convention, the facts referring to its duty in respect to legal guarantees and due process are of a continuous nature. 4. Therefore, the Commission is competence ratione tempore with regard to those facts as per the competent given by the Convention. 19. In those matters specifically referred to the Declaration, the Commission is competent to know the case because the allegations referred to violations of rights recognized in its Article I (right to life, liberty and personal security); VII (right to protection for mothers and children); IX (right to inviolability of the home); and XXIII (right to property) as indicated by Articles 26 and 51 of its Regulations.5 20. The Commission is also competent with respect to the Convention, to examine the alleged facts that may constitute violation or continuous denegation of justice as per Articles 8 and 25 (right to judicial guarantees, and rights to due legal process) in relation with Article 1(1). By its ratification of the Convention, Suriname assumed the duty to respect all rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to guarantee its full and free enjoyment to all persons under its jurisdiction6 (Article 1(1)), including judicial guarantees and protection, as stated in Articles 8 and 25. According to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights this obligation implies the duty of the State party to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridical ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. 21. Consequently, the Commission has competence ratione tempore to examine and decide the instant case, in relation to the violations allegedly occurred before Suriname’s ratification of the Convention, as well as in relation with the Convention in reference to proceedings and activities or inactions by the State of Suriname as continuing violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation with its Article 1(1). 22. The Commission considers as well necessary to examine the admissibility in relation with the positive obligation indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention (obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized and to guarantee its full and free exercise). In that sense the Commission reminds what the Court has indicated: Basically, the measures the Court may impose constitute the protection of the law for the rights provided by the Convention which in light of the positive obligation contained in Article 1(1) obligating states to respect and guarantee them, implies, as the Court has stated… the duty of the States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.7 23. While petitioners do not explicitly invoke violation of Article 1(1), either as positive obligation, and in relation to other Articles recognized in the Convention that allegedly have been violated, the Commission in consideration of the facts denounced considers it shall examine the eventual violation of Article 1 to establish if the State of Suriname has violated in 4 Cf. CIDH Case 11.516 Ovelario Tames. Report Nº 60/99, April 13 th, 1999. Paras. 26 and 27. Annual Report 1998, Vol I, p.446. 5 The fact that Suriname had ratified the American Convention on November 12, 1987, does not exempt it from the responsibility for acts that violate human rights and that had ocurred before its ratification, but are guaranteed by the American Declaration, which has binding force, as per Advisory Opinion Nº 10, Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Interpretation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Serie A. Decisions and Opinions.Nº 10. 6 I.A. Court HR. Godinez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Serie C. Nº 5 par. 175. 7 I.A. Court HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Serie C. Nº 4. par. 164. Godinez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Serie C .Nº 5 par. 175. 4