16 57. It is clear that no identity between the subjects or the objects of this and the Moiwana case can be found. The victims in the Moiwana case differ from the alleged victims in the present case. Whereas the former referred to violations to the detriment of Moiwana community members, the present case involves alleged violations to the detriment of the members of the Saramaka people. While in the Moiwana case the facts referred to the alleged denial of justice and displacement of the Moiwana community occurring subsequent to the attack by members of the armed forces of Suriname on the village of Moiwana on November 29, 1986, in the present case the facts relate to Suriname’s alleged failure to adopt effective measures to recognize the communal property right of the members of the Saramaka people to the territory they have traditionally occupied and used, to provide the members of the Saramaka people effective access to justice, as a community, for the protection of their fundamental rights, and to comply with its obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions and respect Convention rights. 58. For these reasons, the Court also dismisses the State’s sixth preliminary objection with regard to the alleged duplicity of international proceedings in relation to the Moiwana case. G) SEVENTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis 59. The representatives alleged in their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence that the construction of the Afobaka dam and reservoir in the 1960s on land traditionally occupied and used by the Saramaka people “exhibits ongoing and continuous effects and consequences attributable to Suriname and that violate the Convention guarantees.” In particular, the representatives pointed to “a continuing deprivation of access to those traditional lands and resources that have been submerged, as well as irreparable harm to numerous sacred sites; an ongoing disruption of the Saramaka people’s traditional land tenure and resource management systems, which, coupled with a substantial population increase caused by the amalgamation of most of those displaced with existing communities, has placed a severe stress on the capacity of Saramaka lands and forests to meet basic subsistence needs; an ongoing failure of the State to secure tenure rights for those lost lands, both within traditional Saramaka territory and for those communities presently outside this territory; and an ongoing failure to otherwise provide meaningful reparations.” 60. In its additional brief pursuant to Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State contested this Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis over said alleged acts, arguing that they occurred prior to November 12, 1987, which is the date Suriname ratified the American Convention and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 62(1) of the American Convention. Moreover, the State observed that the alleged acts took place in the 1960s during the time the Dutch colonial power ruled over Suriname’s territory, that is to say, before the State of Suriname was established under the accepted rules and principles of international law. Suriname contended that prior to November 25, 1975, which is the date it gained its independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no responsibility under international law could be conferred upon the State of Suriname, not even under the concept of continuous violations, since the State was not a subject of obligations under international law at that time, and the concept of continuous violation is a concept that emerged very recently. 61. The Tribunal has already decided that it is not competent to hear the alleged violations related to the construction of the Afobaka dam in the present case because the Commission did not include such facts in its application (supra paras. 11-17). Therefore, there is no need for the Court to address this again at this juncture.