10 Ramón de Freitas. 37. At the hearing, the Court rejected the objections filed by Suriname and heard the testimony, while “reserving the right to consider it at a later date”. The witnesses and experts proffered by the parties responded to the questions put to them by the parties and the judges. 38. During these proceedings, an amicus curiae brief was received from the International Commission of Jurists. IV 39. In view of the fact that more detailed information was required in order to be able to fix the amount of the compensation and costs, the President, after consulting with the Permanent Commission, on September 24, 1992, decided to have the Court avail itself of the services of Mr. Christopher Healy and Ms. Merina Eduards as experts. By order of March 16, 1993, the Court decided to “at the appropriate time make available to the parties the information supplied by the experts in this case.” The Court also requested clarifications and additional information of the parties. On March 18, 1993, the Court asked the Commission to transmit “a final list of the correct names of the persons it contends are the children and spouses of the victims” in this case. On March 20, 1993, the Court asked the Government to send “to the Court whatever information and observations the Government of Suriname deems advisable to submit in this regard.” A final list containing the names of the wives, children, and other dependents of the victims was drawn up by the Commission on April 8, 1993, and delivered to the Secretariat of the Court on the 14th of that month. By note of April 26, 1993, the President granted the Government a period of 20 days to present its observations regarding the documents transmitted by the Commission to the Court. The Government made no observations, nor did it present the information it had been requested to provide. 40. During the Special Session of the Court held from March 15 to 18, 1993, it was decided that the Deputy Secretary, Ana María Reina, would travel to Suriname in order to gather additional information regarding the economic, financial, and banking situation of the country. She would also visit the village of Gujaba to obtain data that would enable the Court to deliver a judgment taking into account the prevailing conditions in Suriname. This decision was communicated to the parties. The information and data gathered during this visit through interviews and documents, both in Paramaribo and in the village of Gujaba, have also been utilized by the Court to fix the amount of compensation. V 41. The Court has jurisdiction to decide on the payment of reparations and costs in the instant case. Suriname has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 12, 1987, date on which it also accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission submitted the case to the Court pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and 50 of its Regulations, and the Court decided the case on the merits on December 4, 1991.