33. The Petitioners contend that this status quo was confirmed by the Commission in its 2006 report on the Twelve Saramaka Clans, where the Commission found that legal remedies are unavailable in domestic law for the recognition of indigenous peoples’ land and resource rights, and 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.”16 34. As set out above, the Petitioners contend that they have made multiple efforts to negotiate with the State to rectify the alleged violations of the rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, but so far, to no avail. 35. In the circumstances, the Petitioners argue that they are excused from the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46(1) of the American Convention and Article 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Petitioners point out that Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention and Article 31(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure exempt petitioners from the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies when “the domestic legislation of the State does not afford due process for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated.” 36. The Petitioners contend that where the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable, Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that “the deadline for the presentation of the petition to the Commission shall be within a reasonable period of time, in the Commission’s judgment, as from the date on which the alleged violation of rights has occurred, considering the circumstances of each specific case.” The Petitioners assert that, having regard to the circumstances of the alleged violations, the petition has been presented within a reasonable time. B. Position of the State 37. The State’s submissions are confined to the admissibility of the petition. The State argues that the petition is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and for duplication of procedures. 38. The State contends that the Petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies available under Suriname law. The State refers to section 1386 of the Suriname Civil Code, which according to the State enables a citizen to “apply to the independent judiciary in case of an alleged unlawful infringement of his interests by any person, including the State.”17 The State goes on to assert that “Any violation by any act or omission of a person or the State, either of the law, subjective right or an unwritten standard of due care or good governance that causes someone harm is an unlawful infringement of that person’s interests and entitles him to one or more forms of repair of the harm (damages, restitution in integrum, declaratory decision, prohibition for the future) (sic)”.18 The State goes on to contend that Article 1386 of the Suriname Civil Code provides adequate and effective remedies to address the alleged violations of Articles 3, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, which the Petitioners have failed to exhaust. 39. The State argues that the subject matter of the petition was previously the subject of proceedings before the UN Committee on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD) between 2002 and 2004. The State acknowledges that it made the same submission to the Commission with respect to the case of the Twelve Saramaka Clans, but that the Commission had rejected the submission because (a) the petition in the case of the Twelve Saramaka Clans predated CERD’s consideration of the subject matter, and (b) the Commission considered that the proceedings before CERD were with respect to revisions of periodic reports due to CERD by the State of Suriname and not with “a measure seeking settlement as the basis of [the] petition.”19 16 17 18 19 IACHR Report, Case 12.338, Report No. 09/06, Twelve Saramaka Clans, Suriname, March 02, 2006, para. 230. State’s submission received by the Commission on June 19, 2007, page 2. Ibid. Ibid., page 3. 8