47 b) forcible eviction or involuntary resettlement is prohibited under international law because it does grave and disastrous harm to the basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of both individuals and collectivities. In the case of tribal peoples, forcible eviction completely severs their various relationships with their ancestral lands. Arguments of the Commission 105. Although the Commission did not explicitly claim the violation of the right established in Article 22 of the American Convention, it argued that – owing to the ongoing impunity for the November 29, 1986 attack on Moiwana Village and the fact that the perpetrators continue to hold power and influence in Suriname – the Moiwana survivors remain fearful and unable to return to their traditional lands. Furthermore, the Commission asserted that “[t]he [alleged] forced displacement [of the Moiwana community members] brought about by the massacre and the absence of any accountability for these violations [allegedly] continues to deny its members protection for their basic rights and human dignity.” Arguments of the State 106. Although the State did not expressly refer to an alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 22 of the American Convention, it nevertheless contended that: a) the Moiwana survivors “have never been an isolated community, that […] practiced its own culture”; b) “[a]lthough they have mostly fled to other places, they are regularly in the northeast Marowijne coastal region of Suriname and/or elsewhere in the country”; and c) they move freely throughout the country. “No communications have thereby ever reached the Suriname[se] Government that the rights of these persons were violated or that they were intimidated.” The Court’s Assessment 107. As already noted above (supra paragraph 91), as well as in numerous other judgments, this Court has the competence, based upon the American Convention and in light of the iura novit curia principle, to study the possible violation of Convention provisions that have not been alleged in a case’s pleadings. Indeed, a court has the duty to apply all appropriate legal standards – even when not expressly invoked by the parties – in the understanding that those parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions with regard to the relevant facts.63 In this way, the Tribunal underscores that the facts to be considered in the present chapter are grounded in the application and have been subsequently clarified over the course of the litigation before this Court; thus, all of the parties involved have had their due opportunity to present their positions with regard to said facts.64 63 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 59, para. 122; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, paras. 125 and 126; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 179. 64 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, para. 126.