4 [. . .] That the Court order Suriname to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the victims in the instant case. [. . .] 10. Suriname’s counter-memorial was received by the Court on June 28, 1991. In it, the Government interposed preliminary objections. The document presented by the Government requested that the Court declare that: 1.Suriname cannot be held responsible for the disappearance and death of the persons named by the Commission. 2.In view of the fact that it has not been proved that the violation attributed to Suriname was committed, Suriname should not have to pay compensation of any type whatsoever for the death and disappearance of the persons listed in the Commission’s report. 3.Suriname be exempted from the payment of costs in the instant case, since its responsibility for the executions attributed to it has not been demonstrated. 11. At the public hearing convened by the Court on December 2, 1991, to deal with the preliminary objections, Suriname accepted its responsibility in the instant case (cf. Aloeboetoe et al. Case, supra, introductory paragraph, para. 22). 12. As a result, in its judgment of December 4, 1991, the Court unanimously 1. Notes the admission of responsibility proffered by the Republic of Suriname and finds that the dispute relating to the facts giving rise to the instant case has now been concluded. 2. Decides to retain the case on its docket in order to fix reparations and costs. (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, supra, introductory paragraph, operative part.) II 13. By order of January 18, 1992, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) granted the Commission until March 31, 1992, to offer and submit the evidence at its disposal regarding reparations and costs in the instant case; he gave the Government until May 15, 1992, to present its observations on the Commission’s submission. In that order, the President also summoned the parties to a public hearing on the subject, to be held at 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 1992. At the request of the Commission and with the Government’s agreement, the President on March 24, 1992, agreed to postpone the aforementioned hearing until July 7, 1992, at the same hour. 14. The Commission presented its brief on reparations and costs on March 31, 1992, with the Spanish translation following on May 8. 15. In its brief, the Commission maintains that, under Article 63(1) of the American Convention and the applicable principles of international law, the Government must compensate the injured party for damages resulting from its failure to fulfill its obligations on the basis of the rule of restitutio in integrum. In the Commission’s opinion, the Government should indemnify for material and moral damages, grant other, non-monetary reparations and reimburse the expenses and