11 39. Furthermore, the State maintained that the Commission did not take into consideration the State’s submission detailing its implementation of the recommendations found within the Commission’s Article 50 report. In this regard, the Court reiterates that Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention establish two separate stages.29 Once the preliminary report established in Article 50 of the Convention is adopted, the Commission need not necessarily adopt a further report assessing the compliance or non-compliance of its recommendations by the State. Rather, the Commission is empowered, within the period of three months, to decide whether to submit the case to the Court by means of the respective application or to proceed in accordance with Article 51 of the Convention.30 However, this decision is not discretionary, but rather must be based upon the alternative that would most favorably protect the rights established in the Convention.31 40. In this respect, the Commission has affirmed that it “took fully into account the information provided by the parties during the time period between the issuance of the Article 50 report and its determination that the case should be sent to the Court”. The Court is of the opinion that it is within the competence of the Commission, in accordance with Article 51 of the Convention as well as with the standards set forth in Article 44 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, to consider whether or not the State has complied with the recommendations of the Article 50 report and to decide the referral of the case to the Court for its adjudication. However, even if the Commission has a certain margin of discretion in this appraisal, due regard should be given to the respect of the procedural rights of the parties.32 Additionally, the Court will review the proceedings before the Commission when an error may exist that infringes the State’s right of defense.33 However, in the present case there is no evidence that suggests that the Commission failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention or its Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the Court hereby dismisses the State’s fourth preliminary objection in this regard as well. E) FIFTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 41. Suriname affirmed that the alleged victims have not pursued and exhausted the remedies available under domestic law, which the State avowed are adequate and effective. The State argued that effective legal recourse is recognized under several articles of Suriname’s Civil Code, namely articles 1386,34 1387,35 1388,36 1392,37 and 1393.38 29 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 26, para. 37, and Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 26, para. 50. 30 Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 26, para. 63; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 26, para. 37, and Case of Cayara, supra note 27, para. 39. Cf. also Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 26, para. 50. 31 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 26, para. 37, and Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 26, para. 50. 32 Cf. Case of Cayara, supra note 27, para. 63, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 26, para. 43. 33 Cf. Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 24, para. 66. 34 “Article 1386: Every lawful act which causes damages to another, imposes an obligation on the person through whose fault the damage was caused to compensate such damage”. Cf. Civil Code of Suriname (case file of appendices to the application and appendix 1, appendix 4, folio 51). 35 “Article 1387: Everyone shall be responsible not only for the damage he has caused by his act, but also for that which he has caused by his negligence or carelessness”. Cf. Civil Code of Suriname (case file of appendices to the application and appendix 1, appendix 4, folio 51). 36 “Article 1388: 1. One is not only responsible for the damage cause by one’s own act, but also for that which is caused due to acts of persons for whom one is responsible, or by goods one has in one’s possession. […] 3. The principals and those who appoint other persons to represent their affairs, shall be responsible for the