· the right to judicial protection (Article 25), · the right to juridical personality (Article 3), and is further liable for failing to respect the rights of the alleged victims or to give domestic legal effect to their rights, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, respectively. Admissibility Issues 28. The Petitioners argue that the petition is admissible for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs. 29. The Petitioners assert that Suriname acceded to the American Convention on November 12, 1987, and that the Commission has jurisdiction to receive and act on their petition by virtue of, and in accordance with Articles 44-51 of the American Convention, and Article 19 of the Commission’s Statute. The Petitioners further assert that the alleged violations occurred within Suriname’s territory. The Petitioners add that the alleged violations were all initiated subsequent to Suriname’s accession to the American Convention, or, where they were initiated subsequent prior thereto, exhibit ongoing and continuous effects and consequences attributable to Suriname which violate the guarantees of the Convention. The Petitioners therefore contend that the Commission has the jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis to examine the allegations in the petition. 30. With respect to the Commission’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Petitioners acknowledge that the establishment of the nature reserves and the issue of some of the individual land titles occurred prior to Suriname’s accession to the American Convention. However, the Petitioners argue that the consequences of these State actions continue to affect the rights of the alleged victims under the American Convention, as detailed above. The Petitioners rely on inter-American and other international human rights jurisprudence to buttress their position in this regard.15 31. The Petitioners assert that the subject matter of the petition is not presently pending before any other international proceedings, nor does it duplicate a petition already examined by any other international governmental organization. 32. The Petitioners allege that Suriname’s laws do not provide adequate or effective remedies to seek the recognition, recovery, and protection of the indigenous property rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples. As the Petitioners have previously stated, the Constitution and laws of Suriname preclude the recognition and effective protection of the property rights of the alleged victims. The Petitioners add that the territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples is classified as State property under Suriname law, and that accordingly, the alleged victims have no justifiable rights that may be enforced against the State. The laws of Suriname further do not recognize the right to communal property, and there are accordingly no remedies, judicial or otherwise, specific to indigenous peoples or generally applicable, designed to provide for recognition of the alleged victims’ traditional lands, territory and resources. According to the Petitioners, the State’s land laws and titling procedures provide no basis for regularizing and securing the communal rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, and the only available title (to State lands) is a revocable 15-40 year lease (Grondhuur), which cannot be issued to collectivities. The Petitioners rely on: I/A Court of H.R. Case of Blake. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of July 2, 1996, Series C No. 27, paras. 33 &40; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Genie Lacayo. Judgment of January 27, 1995, Series C No. 21, para. 22-26; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Plan de Sanchez Massacre. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004, Series C No. 105; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Alfonso Martin del Campo Dodd. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 03, 2004, Series C. No. 113, para. 79; I/A Court of H.R., Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of November 23, 2004, Series C, No 118, para. 67; I/A Court of H.R.,Case of Moiwana Village, (cit. supra), paras. 108 and 126. The Petitioners also cite a number of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, including Papamichalpoulos et al. v Greece, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 14556/89 (1993) (Judgment) (Merits); Agrotexim and others v Greece, Eur. Ct. H.R. App. No. 14807/89 (1995) (Judgment) (Merits). 15 7