17 Arguments of the Commission 66. With regard to the fifth preliminary objection, the Commission stated that it failed to understand which would be the “pertinent parts” that were not transmitted to the State. On the other hand, given that the State declined to respond to multiple requests for information from the Commission, and that it did not challenge the admissibility or the merits of the claims raised until after Merits Report No. 35/02, the Commission cannot perceive how the State’s right to defense was compromised. Arguments of the representatives 67. The representatives did not submit arguments concerning the fifth preliminary objection. The Court’s Assessment 68. With regard to the fifth and final preliminary objection, the Court finds it necessary to indicate that, as discussed above (supra paragraph 50), Suriname initially participated in the proceedings before the Commission by submitting a substantive brief in May 2002, which not only was presented well after the Commission’s several requests for information, but also subsequent to the issuing of the Admissibility Report of March 7, 2000 and the Merits Report of February 28, 2002. Thus, the Tribunal deems Suriname’s preliminary objection regarding the Commission’s alleged failure to transmit “the pertinent parts of the petition” to the State to be improper. Having chosen not to exercise its right to defense during the appropriate procedural opportunities before the Commission, Suriname may not raise said objection now, before this Court. 69. For the aforementioned reason, the Tribunal rejects the State’s fifth preliminary objection. VI PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS 70. The Court has taken into account, as it has done in other judgments, certain facts that occurred before the State’s recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction.9 This was done only to place into the proper context those alleged violations over which the Tribunal actually exercises jurisdiction. The Court emphasizes, as stated previously (supra paragraph 43), that it is only competent to declare violations of the American Convention with regard to actions or omissions that have taken place following the date of recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and with respect to any situations which have not ceased to exist by that date. * * * 71. At this juncture, the Tribunal deems it necessary to identify clearly the alleged victims of the instant case. The alleged victims are those persons individualized in 9 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1st., 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 27.