9 36. On December 9, 1993, the Court provided the relevant parts of the public hearing concerning the testimony of Dr. M. A. Vrede to the Division which had supplied the expert forensic testimony in Venezuela, with the request that it verify whether the statements contained therein affected the initial conclusions of their report and, if so, in what manner. The follow-up report was submitted to the Court with a letter dated January 5, 1994, by the Director General of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police of Venezuela. The parties were duly informed of its contents. 37. The following organizations submitted amici curiae briefs: the International Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University College of Law, the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), and the International Human Rights Law Group. III 38. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Suriname has been a State Party to the Convention since November 12, 1987, the date on which it also recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, as set out in Article 62 of the Convention. IV 39. During the proceedings, the Commission asserted the following: [. . .] Because of its judicial nature, the Court has the power to reach its own conclusions as to the legality of the proceedings and as to the verification and scope of the facts determined by the Commission (see Article 62(3)). In cases in which the Court concludes that the proceedings before the Commission were in violation of the Convention and/or that the facts have not been duly established, there is no doubt that the Court can order the submission of relevant proof. The Commission respectfully submits to the Court that the facts of the instant case were properly verified and that, consequently, it is inappropriate to initiate a probative stage. In support of its position, the Commission makes reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Stocké v. The Federal Republic of Germany, in which that Court made the following determination: The Court recalls that under the (European) Convention system, the establishment and verification of the facts is primarily a matter for the (European) Commission (Articles 28 § 1 and 31). Accordingly, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will use its powers in this area. (Eur. Court H.R., Stocké judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 199, para. 53) In presenting its evidence, the Commission declared: Without detriment to the Commission's request to the Court that the latter find that the facts were verified in the proceedings before the Commission, evidence is hereby offered in the unlikely event that the Court decide that exceptional circumstances exist which require it to act as a 'factfinder.' 40. The Agent of Suriname, for his part, stated that: [. . .] [I]t is evident that, pursuant to the provisions governing its jurisdiction contained in Articles 62(3) and 63 of the Convention, the Court has the power to consider, revise and reevaluate all of the facts of a case, independently of whether or not the Commission has previously determined that the facts have been established. 41. The Court notes that the Commission and the Court perform different, albeit complementary, functions when they deal with matters related to the observance of the