-5the State in a difficult always defending position. The State believes that treating the
individuals as separate parties before the Court, which is not in conformity with the
Convention, further weakened the position of States parties. This is not contemplated in
the Convention. The State therefore strongly recommends that if individuals are given
standing before your […] Court, this must take place according to the provisions of the
Convention, namely only through the Commission. At the preliminary meeting on 8
September 2004, in San Jose Costa Rica, the State has already brought this particular
concern to the attention of your […] Court. The State respectfully requests your […]
Court’s explanation on this issue;
In paragraph 39 of the judgment this […] Court argues “According to this principle of
non-retroactivity, in the case of a continuing or permanent violation, which begins before
the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and persists even after that acceptance, the
tribunal is competent to examine the actions and omissions occurring subsequent to the
recognition of jurisdiction, as well as their respective effects.” This Court indicates that
acts and omission that took place after the State’s accession to the Convention are
within the Courts’ competence to examine. Conclusively, the Court indicates that acts
that happened prior to the States accession to the Convention are not in its jurisdiction
to examine. This is the reason why the State believes it is not necessary to provide
facts and circumstances that […] took place prior to Suriname’s accession to the
Convention and its acceptance of the jurisdiction of this […] Court in November 1987,
are out of the jurisdiction of this […] Court. The State believes that it can not be
punished for not providing information that is clearly out of the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal reviewing the case. The State kindly requests the Court’s explanation why in
several parts of the judgment, the Court’s analysis clearly places the State in a minority
position? Maybe because facts and circumstances that are not in the jurisdiction of the
Court were not sufficiently submitted to the […] Court?
The State is of the opinion that the Court’s assessment and conclusion with regard to
collective title to traditional territories (see among others paragraphs 209 and others),
cannot be based upon the law and facts provided and available to your […] Court in this
particular case. As the […] Commission argued in its petition to the […] Court, this case
is primarily focused on the nature of a continuing violation, since the Commission argued
that the State failed to investigate the occurrences that happened on 29 November 1986
in the Village of Moiwana in the interior of the State. The State argues that there are no
facts and laws provided in this case to satisfy this Court’s conclusion regarding this issue
and as stated in this judgment. The State strongly argues that with regard to this
particular issue, this […] Court can only conclude that the members of the Village of
Moiwana are entitled to return on any moment they want to, to the traditional lands that
they fled from on 29 November 1986. Furthermore, that the State must guarantee that
these villagers are entitled to freely take possession of these lands in a status prior to 29
November 1986. […] [T]he State believes that the measures mandated by this Court in
said judgment, are maybe based on decision in other cases decided by this [C]ourt, but
can not be applied to this case without an in depth investigation of facts and
circumstances related to this specific issue of land rights. Suriname is inhabited by more
than 15 different tribal communities, among which maroons and indigenous peoples. All
these groups have certain traditional areas in the interior they live on. Members of
these tribal communities also live in cities in the coastal area. A decision as to measures
regarding demarcation and delimitation can only be taken in the light of a case regarding
the particular issue of land rights in Suriname. This case did not provide enough facts
and circumstances on the specific issue of land rights to satisfy the Court’s conclusion
and judgment in this regard. The State respectfully requests the Court’s explanation on
this particular matter because it is convinced that this Court adopted a decision on a
matter that was not placed before this […] Court and for which not enough facts and
circumstances where provided to take a well accepted legally sound decision.
IV
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
6.
On October 10, 2005, in accordance with Article 59(2) of the Rules of
Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Tribunal (hereinafter