annexes with helpful evidence sent by the State were received, 16 following a request for an extension of the deadline granted by the Court. 17. Observations on the helpful evidence following the visit. On September 30 and October 13, 2015, the representatives, the State and the Commission submitted their observations on the helpful evidence. 18. Deliberation of the case. The Court initiated the deliberation of this Judgment on November 17, 2015. III JURISDICTION 19. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because Suriname has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 12, 1987, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction the same day. IV EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 20. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 2.f, 5 and 6) In addition, the Court received the affidavits made by: (1) the witnesses Claudine Sakimin and Loreen Jubitana, proposed by the State and the representatives, respectively; (2) the opinion of the expert witness, Dr. Stuart Kirsch,17 proposed by the representatives; (3) the statement of the alleged victim Captain Grace Watamaleo, proposed by the representatives, and (4) the Court transferred to this case the expert opinions provided by Mariska Muskiet18 and Magda Hoever- Reserve, and (b) a communication of August 26, 1978, signed by Jr. F. C. Bubberman, Head of the State Forest Management Service, and A. C. Cirino, Chair of KANO (merits file, folio 945). 16 Letters of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court dated August 25, September 11 and 22 and October 5, 2015 (merits file, folios 923, 974, 1019 and 1080). These annexes contained: (a) a list of the Maroon settlements located in the area claimed by the indigenous peoples; (b) administrative decisions regarding pensions that the captains of the Kaliña and Lokono villages receive from the Government; (c) documentation concerning a series of meeting held in 2013 and 2014 between the State and representatives of the indigenous peoples aimed at resolving the problem of land ownership; (d) a document confirming the agreements made between the State and KANO; (e) regarding the Galibi Nature Reserve, documents concerning the constitution of the Dialogue Commission, and information on the activities underway; (f) regarding the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, documentation on a meeting between the State and indigenous representatives regarding establishment of the nature reserve (g) reports, documents and maps relating to the Wane Kreek mining concession, and to the rehabilitation of the area, and (h) a map of Albina and another of Tuinstad Albina, as well as copies of the Domains Office records with regard to the titles issued for “Tuinstad Albina” (evidence file, folios 2925 to 3077). Regarding the information requested, the State advised that it was unable to obtain the list of the participants in the 1986 meeting in Wan Shi Sha concerning the establishment of the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve. However, it wished to provide the Court with documentation on the creation of the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, including reports of different meetings between KANO, the Forest Management Service, and the chiefs of the indigenous villages affected (evidence file, folio 3032). 17 The expert opinion of Dr. Stuart Kirsch, Associate Professor of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, referred to the impact of the extraction of natural resources and other activities on the well-being and culture of the alleged victims, as well as on the nature of the mining operations on their land. 18 The expert opinion of Mariska Muskiet referred to effective rights in Suriname, and domestic remedies in relation to the land claims of indigenous and tribal communities. Cf. Case of Kaliña and Lokono peoples v. Suriname. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra, twenty-first considerandum and footnote 4. 10