56. The Commission shares the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights that the petitioner may be excepted from the requirement to exhaust all domestic remedies if it is clearly evident in the record that the proceedings brought in connection with the petition do not suggest reasonable prospects of success, in view of the prevailing case law of the State’s highest legal bodies.26 The Commission considers that in such circumstances, actions in which complaints of this nature are made would not be considered “effective” in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 57. The Petitioners allege that Suriname’s laws do not provide adequate or effective remedies to seek the recognition, recovery, and protection of the indigenous property rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples. As the Petitioners have previously stated, the Constitution and laws of Suriname preclude the recognition and effective protection of the property rights of the alleged victims. 58. In its report on the Twelve Saramaka Clans, the Commission addressed an identical submission from the State with respect to availability of remedies under Suriname’s Civil Code. At paragraph 253 of its report, the Commission observed that: …. the State’s obligation to provide judicial recourse is not simply met by the mere existence of courts or formal procedures, or even by the possibility of resorting to the courts. Rather, the State has to adopt affirmative measures to guarantee that the recourses it provides through the justice system are “really effective for determining the existence of a human rights violation and providing the corresponding compensation.”27 In accordance with Article 25 of the American Convention, the State has the duty to adopt positive measures to guarantee the judicial protection of the individual and collective rights of indigenous communities. With respect to the right to collective property, the State should provide in its judicial regime, suitable and effective judicial remedies, which should provide some special guarantee/compensation depending on/in accordance with the social dimension of the violated right. These remedies should offer an adequate procedural framework to deal with the collective dimension of the conflict, conferring on the affected group the possibility of claiming, through its representatives or authorized persons, the guaranteed right to participate in the process and to obtain compensation. 59. Based upon this analysis, the Commission found that Suriname failed to provide any remedies under domestic law for the petitioners, and accordingly, they were exempted from the requirement to demonstrate exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Commission considers that the situation of the Lower Marowijne Peoples with respect to this issue is indistinguishable from that of the Twelve Saramaka Clans. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the domestic legal system does not provide adequate, effective remedies to respond to the complaints presented, and for this reason they are exempt from the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2. Timeliness of the petition 60. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention prescribes that a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, namely, within six months from the date on which the See, for example, Case 11.193, Report 51/00, Gary Graham, United States (Admissibility), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, paragraph 60, when the European Court of HR is quoted, De Wilde, Oomas and Versyp Cases, June 10, 1971, Publication of the European Court of HR, Series A, Vol. 12, page 34, paragraphs 37, 62; EUCHR, Avan Oosterwijck vs. Belgium, Judgment (Preliminary Objections), November 6, 1980, Case No. 7654/76, paragraph 37. See also Case 11.753, Report 108/00, Ramón Martínez Villareal, United States (Admissibility), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, paragraph 70. 27 See, for example, Case 10.606, Report Nº 11/98, Samuel de la Cruz Gómez (Guatemala), 1997 Annual Report of the IACHR, paragraph 52, which cites I/A Court of H.R., Advisory Opinion 9/87 of October 6, 1987, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Ser. A Nº 9, paragraph 24. 26 12