53 161. In this case, Suriname has not provided information that it has enacted laws or legislation to address the problems found by the Inter-American Court in Saramaka in connection with the State’s compliance with Article 25 of the American Convention. In its submission of September 12, 2008, the State stated that the process of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in Suriname is “only in early stages of development.” To the extent this statement was intended to apply to the availability of adequate and effective judicial protections under Article 25, the IACHR considers that sufficient time has passed, and Suriname has not demonstrated what specific steps, if any, it has taken in this alleged process to provide judicial protections to the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples.292 In addition, at the hearing held in connection with this case, the State cited a number of laws, policies and procedures to support the proposition that the Kaliña and Lokono have judicial protections under Surinamese legislation.293 However, the cited laws and measures were the same that the Inter-American Court dismissed in Saramaka. 162. For the foregoing reasons, the Inter-American Commission concludes that there are no effective domestic judicial means available for the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples to assert their rights, and, consequently, the State of Suriname has violated the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples. F. The Right to Freedom of Thought and Expression 163. Subsequent to the Report on Admissibility, the petitioners alleged that the State’s failure to provide details regarding the precise dates when titles were issued to non-indigenous persons violates Article 13 of the American Convention, which protects the right to freedom of thought and expression. Specifically, they state that “this failure to make public information available without providing any reason contravenes Article 13 of the American Convention.”294 The State has not made any observations regarding this claim by the petitioners. 164. Article 13 of the American Convention provides, in relevant part: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice (….) 165. Since the petitioners alleged a violation of Article 13 only after the adoption of the Admissibility Report in this case, the IACHR has not received important information regarding the admissibility of this specific alleged violation, including whether domestic remedies were exhausted.295 In any event, as discussed above at paragraph 115, the Inter-American Commission 292 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 161. 293 IACHR, Hearing on the Merits, March 27, 2012, IACHR 144 Period of Sessions, Case 12.639 – Kaliña and Lokono Peoples, Suriname. 294 Submission of petitioners, October 29, 2008, para. 31. In support of this allegation, the petitioners cited I/A Court H.R., Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151. 295 Cf., I/A Court H.R., Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, paras. 44-61.