17 V JURISDICTION 62. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention. Suriname ratified the American Convention on November 12, 1987 and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction that same day. VI EVIDENCE 63. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Court’s prior decisions regarding evidence and its assessment,49 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State at the different procedural stages. It will also examine and assess the testimonies and expert opinions provided by affidavit or before the Court in the public hearing. To that effect, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.50 A) DOCUMENTAL, TESTIMONIAL, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 64. At the request of the President, the Court received the testimonies and declarations by affidavit provided by the following witnesses and expert witnesses:51 a) Silvi Adjako, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, is a member of the Matjau lö (clan), and testified regarding the alleged destruction of her farms by a foreign logging company and her subsequent efforts to obtain redress; b) Hugo Jabini, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, is a founding member of the Association of Saramaka Authorities and serves as its Paramaribo representative. He testified regarding, inter alia: the Saramaka people's efforts to protect their land and resources, their alleged attempts to settle the case with the State, and their methods for documenting traditional Saramaka use of the territory; c) Head Captain Eddie Fonkie, witness proposed by the Commission, representative of the Abaisa lö (clan) and fiscali of the Saramaka people, testified regarding Saramaka customary law that governs ownership of land resources, Saramaka treaty rights, purported contemporary use of Saramaka 49 is a and and land Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. Cf. also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, paras. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 25, paras. 67, 68 and 69, and Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 11, para. 34. 50 Cf. Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 38, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 32. 51 Although on March 30, 2007 the President decided to require the testimonies by affidavit of Mr. Michel Filisie, Minister of Regional Development of the Republic of Suriname, and of Gaa’man Gazon Mathodja (supra note 4), the State informed the Court on April 25, 2007 of its withdrawal of said witnesses from this case.