-4- The State acknowledges that the Convention specifically indicates that the judgment of the Court is not open to appeal. With the possibility to request an interpretation as to the meaning and scope of the judgment, the framers of the Convention gave the parties that disagree with the judgment the opportunity to petition your […] Court. [T]he Republic of Suriname states that it disagrees with specific parts of the Judgment of June 15, 2005, Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, taken by this […] Court. The State respectfully requests the Court’s interpretation to said parts of the judgment. In order for the Court to hear a case, Article 61 section 2 of the Convention mandates that the procedures set forth in Articles 48 and 50 shall have been completed. The State argued in all previous communications during the proceedings and at the public hearing held in September 2004 before your […] Court, that the Commission wrongly adopted a communication as an Article 50 Report. Based on said article 61 section 2 of the Convention, this wrongly adopted “Article 50 Report” serves as the bases to file the petition to your […] Court. […] The State must conclude that your […] Court did not analyze the status or quality of said communication—the Article 50 Report—that was filed by the Commission as the basis for its petition to the Court in the issue at hand. Since the Convention explicitly demands that the procedures mentioned in Articles 48 and 50 of the Convention must be completed, as a conditio sine qua non for your […] Court to exercise jurisdiction over a particular case, the State is of the opinion that your […] Court must carefully review the procedures to determine whether the requirements mentioned in Articles 48 and 50 of the Convention are met by the Commission. Only after this analysis based on facts of law, it can be indicated that said requirements of the Convention are met by the Commission to file this case to the Court. Only then this will give your […] Court the right as laid down in article 61 section 2 of the Convention to hear this particular case […] The State has stated that it strongly disagrees with the determination of the Commission that said report must be labeled as an Article 50 Report. The State argued that the Commission wrongly incorporated several acts of State actors as falling under the Convention, while the State is of the opinion that if the violations occurred, they must be reviewed under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (the Declaration), and not [under] the American Convention on Human Rights […] In general this would not be problematic. However, Suriname was not a Convention-[S]tate on 29 November 1986, when the occurrences regrettably took place in the Village of Moiwana. As a member [s]tate of the OAS, the Declaration applies to these particular occurrences. In addition, the State also argues that the communication labeled as an Article 51 Report by the […] Commission, was not properly taken in conformity with the articles of the Convention, to serve as the prerequisite to petition your […] Court in this particular case. An explanation of your […] Court with regard to these two communications is not included in your judgment, and is tremendously important for the State. The State respectfully requests your […] Court’s interpretation/explanation on this matter. In addition to Article 61 of the Convention, Article 57 of the Convention states: “The Commission shall appear in all cases before the Court.” Based on the provision of the Convention it is clear that the only parties that may legitimately appear as an individual party before your […] Court, are the Commission on behalf of the victim or its representatives and the States parties. Although the Republic of Suriname de facto does not have a problem by giving individuals the opportunity to address your […] Court to provide useful information as to facts and testimonies in a case, this can take place only through the Commission, because the Commission is the only party mentioned in the Convention that have locus standi before the Court on behalf of the victim or his or her representatives. The State is of the opinion that since the Convention takes precedents over internal regulations and or statutes of the […] Commission and the […] Court, no provisions against the text of the Convention can be adopted in these internal regulations and statutes. The State therefore argues that individuals can not be given locus standi as an individual party in the proceedings before your […] Court […] Furthermore, the State points out that the issue of individual standing before the Court is important to the State, since small economies like Suriname does not have the financial resources, capability and time to hire high profile foreign international human rights attorneys, while the opposing parties are backed by financially strong organizations and institutions, with a variety of not only capital but also human resources. These opposing parties might even construct questionable claims and present those to the organs in the [I]nter-American human rights system, thus placing