6 IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 18. In its answer to the application the State submitted a number of preliminary objections, which will be addressed by the Court in the following order: A) FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Lack of legal standing of the petitioners before the Inter-American Commission 19. The State asserted in its first preliminary objection that neither of the two original petitioners, namely the Association of Saramaka Authorities and the twelve Saramaka captains, had standing to file a petition before the Inter-American Commission. More specifically, the State argued that the petitioners did not consult the paramount leader of the Saramakas, the Gaa’man, about filing the petition. This alleged disregard for Saramaka customs and traditions is tantamount, according to the State, to a failure to meet the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention, as the petitioners allegedly had no authorization from the chief leader, and thus no authority to petition on behalf of the whole Saramaka community. Based on these facts, the State was of the view that the Commission should have declared the petition inadmissible. The Inter-American Commission alleged that, under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, it is not necessary for the petitioners to be the actual victims or to hold power of attorney or other legal authorization from the victims or next of kin in order to file the petition. The representatives alleged that, although the petitioners consulted with the Gaa’man, both prior and after the submission of the petition, there is no requirement, explicit or implicit, in either Article 44 of the Convention or Article 23 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure that the Gaa’man, whom the State considers to be the representative of the petitioners, had to submit the petition or that the petitioners had to obtain authorization from the Gaa’man to do so. 20. In this regard, the Court must analyze the scope of the provision of Article 44 of the Convention, which is to be construed by the Court in accordance with the object and purpose of such treaty, namely, the protection of human rights,12 and in accordance with the principle of the effectiveness (effet utile) of legal rules.13 21. Article 44 of the Convention provides that: [a]ny person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party. 22. Article 44 of the Convention permits any group of persons to lodge petitions or complaints regarding violations of the rights set forth in the Convention. This broad authority to file a petition is a characteristic feature of the Inter-American system for the 12 Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29. 13 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Constitutional Court v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36. Cf. also Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 66; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 135, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 84.