Also, on May 22, 2006, CLIM sent a communication to the Ministry of Spatial Planning requesting the suspension of any activity that had an impact on their ancestral territory. However, the communications went unanswered (supra para. 67). Likewise, on October 7, 2007, the captains of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples presented a communication to the President of Suriname contesting several constructions in the community of Pierrekondre, without obtaining a response from the State (supra para. 68). And, on January 28, 2013, the captains of Marijkedorp (Wan Shi Sha), Pierrekondre, Tapuku and Erowarte presented a communication to the President of the Republic protesting against the construction of a casino in the community of Marijkedorp, without receiving any answer (supra para. 69). 256. Based on the foregoing, witness Loreen Jubitana, Director of the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (VIDS), testified in the affidavit she presented to the Court that the State has made no concrete progress towards resolving the problems related to the recognition of the rights of the indigenous peoples and that, to the contrary, whenever pressure is brought to bear on the State, it establishes a commission as a way of diffusing the situation, without achieving effective results.299 257. Meanwhile, expert witness Stuart Kirsh indicated in his sworn testimony before the Court that, even though they had submitted many petitions and held numerous meetings with State authorities, the Kaliña and Lokono peoples had not received a productive or conclusive response to their requests for recognition of their ancestral territories and other rights.300 258. Consequently, the Court finds that the acts and omissions of the State authorities in the petitions and judicial proceedings examined in this section have not provided appropriate and effective answers to the claims submitted, so that they have not afforded a real possibility for the Kaliña and Lokono peoples to achieve the restitution of their ancestral territories. B.3 The right of access to information in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention 259. The Court considers it important to emphasize that the parties have not argued the violation of Article 13 of the Convention during the proceedings before this Court (supra paras. 232 and 234). However, it deems it pertinent to apply the iura novit curia principle, which allows the Court to examine possible violations of the norms of the Convention that have not been alleged in the briefs presented by the parties, provided the latter have had the opportunity to express their respective positions in relation to the facts that substantiate such violations.301 260. It is for the Court to analyze whether the State’s failure to answer the request for information on the property titles, which the victims have alleged, constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 13 thereof. 261. The Court has established that, pursuant to the protection accorded by the American Convention, the right to freedom of thought and expression includes not only the right and freedom to express one’s own thoughts, but also the right and freedom to seek, receive and 299 Cf. Affidavit made by Loreen Jubitana on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 434). 300 Cf. Affidavit made by Stuart Kirsh on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 351). 301 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No 299, para. 194. The State did not comment on the alleged violation of the right of access to information during the merits stage before the Commission, even though it was advised of this allegation by the representatives; thus, the State had the opportunity to indicate its position with regard to these facts. In addition, during the on-site procedure, it argued that, in Suriname, access to public records was not denied. 67