State’s submissions on this issue. The procedures undertaken by the CERD were thematic in nature, and did not involve the same claims and guarantees as presented in the instant case. Accordingly, the Commission therefore finds that the petition lodged by the petitioners does not violate Article 47 (d) of the American Convention with respect to duplication of procedures, and is therefore admissible under this rubric. 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 51. The State invokes Article 46 of the Convention to affirm that the Commission should not admit the petition on the grounds that all remedies available under domestic law have not been exhausted, and that the exceptions described in this provision are not applicable to this case because the petitioners did not bring legal proceedings for relief as provided for by the Suriname Civil Code. 52. The Petitioners, for their part, argue that they should be exempted from the requirement to exhaust the remedies available under domestic law, by virtue of Article 46(2) of the Convention, because the State has not provided effective remedies to be exhausted, which argument by the petitioners is linked to their claim that the State has not afforded either adequate protection under the law, or access to justice in this case. The Petitioners allege that the indigenous property rights and customary laws of the Lower Marowijne Peoples are internationally guaranteed, yet are neither recognized nor respected in the Constitution of Suriname or other laws of Suriname. According to the Petitioners, the right to communal property is not a legal right under Suriname law, and so accordingly, there are no remedies, judicial or otherwise, specific to indigenous persons or generally applicable, designed to provide for recognition and recovery of the alleged victims’ traditional lands, territory and resources. In support of this contention, the Petitioners rely on previous findings of the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.23 53. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention states that for a case to be admissible the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2) of the Convention defines the exceptions to the previous rule: when the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right that has allegedly been violated; when the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies available under domestic law; or when there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the remedies. 54. Furthermore, when the petitioner contends that he cannot prove the exhaustion of domestic remedies, Article 31(3) of the Rules and Procedure of the Commission establishes that it shall be up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not previously been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.24 55. When deciding whether the petitions lodged by the petitioners should be considered inadmissible because all remedies available under domestic law have not been exhausted, the Commission refers to the basic principles that govern the nature of the remedies that should be exhausted in the inter-American system, that is, whether they are adequate in addressing an infringement of a legal right, and effective in that they must be capable of producing the result for which they were designed.25 The Petitioners rely on I/A Court of H.R., Case of Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, where the Court stated at paragraph 86 (5) that “Although individual members of indigenous and tribal communities are considered natural persons by Suriname’s Constitution, the State’s legal framework does not recognize such communities as legal entities. Similarly, national legislation does not provide for collective rights”. The Petitioners also cite IACHR Report 09/06, Case 12.338, Twelve Saramaka Clans, Suriname, March 02, 2006, where the Commission found, at para. 230, that “indigenous and Maroon communities lack legal status in Suriname and are not eligible to receive communal titles on behalf of the community or other traditional collective entities that possess land.” 24 I/A Court of H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No 1, paragraph 88. 25 I/A Court of H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4, paragraphs 63-66. See also I/A Court of H.R., Exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Articles 46(1)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, Series A No. 11 (1990), paragraphs 34, 36. 23 11