53 Arguments of the Commission 123. The Commission did not specifically submit arguments of law regarding the alleged violation of the right established in Article 21 of the American Convention. Arguments of the State 124. The State also did not expressly present arguments of law regarding the alleged violation of the right established in Article 21 of the American Convention. The Court’s Assessment 125. The Court once again notes that the Commission did not submit explicit arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 21 of the American Convention. Yet it recalls (supra paragraph 91) that the representatives may argue other violations of the Convention than those alleged by the Commission, as long as such legal arguments are based upon the facts delineated in the application.70 126. Furthermore, as established in the chapter concerning Article 22 of the American Convention (supra paragraph 108), the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the ongoing nature of the community’s displacement from its traditional lands, which constitutes a situation that persisted after the State recognized the Tribunal’s competence in 1987 and continues to the present day. * * 127. * Article 21 of the American Convention provides: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. […] 128. In the preceding chapter regarding Article 22 of the Convention, the Court held that the State’s failure to carry out an effective investigation into the events of November 29, 1986, leading to the clarification of the facts and punishment of the responsible parties, has directly prevented the Moiwana community members from voluntarily returning to live in their traditional lands. Thus, Suriname has failed to both establish the conditions, as well as provide the means, that would allow the community members to live once again in safety and in peace in their ancestral territory; in consequence, Moiwana Village has been abandoned since the 1986 attack. 70 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 59; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 59, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 179.