4 8. On July 3, 2007, the State presented its final written arguments; on July 9, 2007, the Commission and the representatives submitted their respective final written arguments. 9. On July 16, 2007, the representatives were requested to submit the verifying receipts and evidence regarding the costs and expenses incurred by the Forest Peoples Programme in the present case. Said evidence was not submitted. III PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 10. Prior to analyzing the preliminary objection submitted by the State and the possible merits of this case, the Tribunal will address in this chapter whether the Court is competent to address the representatives´ arguments (supra para. 4) regarding the alleged ongoing effects caused by the construction of a dam within alleged traditional Saramaka territory. A. The alleged “ongoing and continuous construction of the Afobaka dam effects” associated with the 11. In its application before the Court, the Commission defined the factual basis for the present case under the heading “Statement of Facts”. Here, the Commission included the following statement: “[d]uring the 1960s, the flooding derived from the construction of a hydroelectric dam displaced Saramakas and created the so-called ‘transmigration’ villages”. This one line is the only reference in the Commission’s application regarding the alleged displacement of members of the Saramaka people due to the construction of a dam, which the representatives referred to as the Afobaka dam that in the 1960s flooded alleged traditional Saramaka territory. The Court observes that the Commission did not develop in the application any legal arguments regarding the alleged international responsibility of the State for these acts. 12. The representatives submitted an additional and rather detailed, three-and-a-half page account of certain facts not contained in the application, regarding the alleged “ongoing and continuous effects” associated with the construction of the Afobaka dam. Accordingly, under the heading of “Facts” in their brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, the representatives described, inter alia, the following alleged facts: the lack of consent by the Saramaka people for said construction; the names of the companies involved in the construction of the dam; various figures regarding the amount of area flooded and the number of displaced Saramakas from the area; the compensation that was awarded to those displaced persons; the lack of access to electricity of the so-called “transmigration” villages; the painful effect the construction had on the community; the reduction of the Saramaka people’s subsistence resources; the destruction of Saramaka sacred sites; the lack of respect for the interred remains of deceased Saramakas; the environmental degradation caused by foreign companies that have received mining concessions in the area, and the State’s plan to increase the level of the dam to increase power supplies, which will presumably cause the forcible displacement of more Saramakas and which has been the object of a complaint filed by the Saramakas before domestic authorities in the year 2003. 13. At this juncture, the Court will address whether the factual basis for the representatives´ arguments regarding the alleged “ongoing and continuous effects” associated with the construction of the Afobaka dam bears a direct relationship with the factual framework submitted to this Tribunal by the Commission in its application, which is