8 the applicable principles of international law, as the Court indicated in the Godínez Cruz Case [Godínez Cruz Case, Compensatory Damages, Judgment of July 21, 1989, (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Series C No. 8, para. 29]. The customary norms of the Saramaka tribe should not be binding in fixing the amount of compensation to be granted to the victims’ next of kin, whose family relationship must be determined by reference to the American Convention and the applicable principles of international law. 28. Suriname accepts the compensation for moral damages and relies on the precedents established in the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz cases, where such compensation was granted after the psychological damages of the family members of the victims had been substantiated by expert medical testimony [Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages, Judgment of July 21, 1989, (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Series C No. 7, para. 51; Godínez Cruz Case, Compensatory Damages, supra 27, para. 49]. According to the Government, this was not done in the instant case, no evidence having been produced on the subject. 29. Suriname objects to the Commission’s request to compensate the Saramaka tribe for moral damages because this claim was not presented during the proceedings on the merits. In its brief, the Government states the following: To admit new claims for compensation during the current COMPENSATORY DAMAGES phase would be to accept the violation of a new international obligation (which the Commission to this date has neither identified nor attributed) that had not been presented by the Commission in its previous briefs and had neither been analyzed by the Court during the various phases of the proceedings nor contested by Suriname’s defense during the prior hearings (apart from the fact that this deprives the government of its defense). 30. The Government argues that the Commission works with outside attorneys, who are listed as lawyers for the victims, in order to perform tasks that should have been done by its own officials. Fees for such services amount to 250 United States of America Dollars (hereinafter “dollars” or “US$”) per hour, a rate that bears no relationship to prevailing conditions in the “inter-American” system. Furthermore, the families of the victims did not file any claims in the Surinamese courts and the Commission was seized of the case a mere fifteen days after the events had taken place. 31. As for the non-pecuniary reparations requested by the Commission, the Government believes that the acceptance of its responsibility, made public in the Court’s judgment of December 4, 1991, is a significant and important form of reparation and moral satisfaction for the families of the victims and the Saramaka tribe. 32. In its brief, Suriname challenges the experts proffered by the Commission to testify at the hearing scheduled for July 7, 1992. It states that such experts should have provided a sworn affidavit — for which the procedural stage had already expired — and that only the testimony of witnesses would be admissible at the hearing. The Government provides supporting proof in its brief. 33. In its conclusion, Suriname’s brief declares the following: