7 an annual sum of Sf. 84,040, adjusted payable to the adult dependents; incrementally, for actual damages lump sums of Sf. 715,618 and US$ 18,533 to cover legal costs; and, a lump sum of US$ 32,375 for expenses. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amounts listed in Surinamese currency, we respectfully ask the Court to order the Government to provide access to the official rate of exchange. Otherwise, the sums involved will have to be recalculated at the market rate of exchange of 20:1. The Court has confirmed that discrepancies exist between the English and Spanish versions of the Commission’s brief, as well as between the figures and names as they appear in the text and in its attachments. 23. On May 13, 1992, the Agent of Suriname requested the President to grant an extension of the time limit set for the Government to submit its observations on the Commission’s brief regarding reparations and costs, in view of the fact that the official Spanish version was transmitted to the Agent on May 12, 1992, “exactly three days before the deadline fixed by the Court” for the Government’s submission. The President acceded to the request and determined that the observations should be submitted to the Secretariat by May 22, 1992, at the latest. The Government presented its observations on Monday, May 25, 1992, that is, on the first working day after expiration of the time limit. In them, the Government argues that the fact that the Commission submitted its brief on the reparations and costs in the English language and that the Spanish translation was delivered to the Agent four days before expiration of the deadline fixed by the Court “resulted in an indirect reduction of the time limit granted [. . .] for presentation of its countermemorial and to some degree impaired once again our defense before that Court” (underlined in the original), since Suriname had barely ten days in which to respond to the Commission’s brief on reparations and costs. 24. The communication emphasizes the importance of Suriname’s express admission to the Court of its responsibility in the instant case. This action by Suriname has its “fundamental basis” in the fact that the country had, on May 25, 1991, retaken the road to democracy and that its President, Dr. Venetiaan, had committed himself “to respect and promote the observance of the obligations comprised in the area of human rights”. It recalls that, in its 1991 Annual Report, the Commission declared that it had received no complaints of alleged violations of human rights since the accession of President Venetiaan. 25. The Government does not seek to disavow the responsibility it accepted before the Court. However, it considers the reparations and costs demanded by the Commission to be excessively burdensome and “a distortion of the meaning of the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention.” It adds that the potential income of the victims as presented by the Commission has no bearing on reality. 26. Suriname points out that its domestic legislation only permits it to make payments in the national currency. Consequently, it shall use that coin to pay all of the financial obligations that this judgment may impose. 27. As for the compensation for actual damages suffered, the Government declares that such compensation should be based on the American Convention and