264. Similarly, this Court asked the State to provide the freehold land titles, and leasehold titles and long-term leases granted to indigenous and non-indigenous third parties, as well as information as to how many of these titles had been issued to non-indigenous third parties. This information was delivered on September 22, 2015, but in Dutch (supra para. 27), and without explaining the information that had been sent, after it had been requested on three occasions (supra paras. 12 and 16).312 265. The Court has received no specific information on the existence of a domestic law that establishes and regulates access to information in Suriname. However, it observes that the October 7, 2007, request for information on the existence of property titles in Pierrekondre was submitted under the protection of article 22 of the Suriname Constitution, which permits anyone to present written petitions to the public authorities. As already mentioned, in its case law, the Court has indicated that the State has the obligation to provide the information requested or, if the request must be refused, it must set out the justification in its decision, so that the reasons and norms on which it based the decision not to provide the information may be known. Moreover, Article 24 of the American Declaration establishes, as part of the right of petition, the State’s obligation to issue a prompt decision (supra para. 246). 266. In this regard, the Court underlines the fact that the State failed to respond to this petition justifying its decision not to provide the said documentation. In addition, the Court has already established on previous occasions that the failure to provide a response enables the State to decide in a discretionary or arbitrary manner whether or not to facilitate certain information, which results in legal uncertainty in relation to the exercise of the right in question.313 267. Furthermore, the Court considers that the information requested was important documentation to provide the Kaliña and Lokono peoples with precise facts on how many individuals from outside their communities were in the area, and the legal situation of the land ownership. Thus, the information could have provided them with additional evidence when filing their claims in the domestic jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court finds that the failure to hand over information in Suriname’s public records, and the failure to justify the refusal to provide it, placed these peoples at a disadvantage and in ignorance in relation to the third parties who alleged that they held title to part of the lands. Hence, the State failed to ensure, under the right of petition, access to information and to justice. C. Conclusion 268. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the above-mentioned domestic provisions do not provide appropriate and effective legal remedies to protect the members of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples against acts that violate their right to property; the judicial proceedings and petitions that were filed were not effective in this regard, and the State did not provide the information requested by the representatives or justify the impossibility of handing it over. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection 312 In this regard, during the public hearing, the Court requested these documents as part of the helpful evidence. On March 14, the State delivered several annexes to the final arguments, which did not include the information on the titles issued to third parties requested during the hearing. On March 26 and April 15, 2015, the Court again asked the Government of Suriname to provide this information. Initially, the State advised the Court that the investigation into the requested titles was underway, but did not attach any documents that proved this information. Finally, on September 22, 2015, the State provided the Court with this information, but in Dutch, after it had again been requested following the visit. 313 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra, para. 77, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), supra, para. 211. 69