3 5. The State submitted its brief containing the answer to the application and observations to the representatives’ brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”), in which it alleged it “is not responsible for the violation of the right to property established in [A]rticle 21 of the Convention, because the State does recognize the Saramaka community [a privilege to the land it] has traditionally occupied and used[;] the right to judicial protection has not been violated, because the Surinamese legislation does provide effective legal recourse[, and] the State […] has complied with its obligation under [A]rticle 1 and [A]rticle 2 of the Convention and therefore not violated these rights”. Furthermore, the State submitted several preliminary objections, which the Court has divided into the following categories: legal standing of the original petitioners before the Commission, legal standing of the representatives before the Court, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, duplication of international procedures, and the Commission’s lack of “standing to bring this particular [case] before [the] Court”. Finally, the State referred to other admissibility arguments regarding the legal representation of the alleged victims and the roles of Mr. David Padilla and Mr. Hugo Jabini in the present case. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. The application of the Commission was notified to the State on September 12, 2006,3 and to the representatives on September 11, 2006. During the proceedings before the Court, in addition to the presentation of the principal briefs forwarded by the parties (supra paras. 1, 4 and 5), the Commission and the representatives submitted written briefs on the preliminary objections presented by the State. Furthermore, on March 26, 2007 the State submitted an additional written pleading, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, to which the Commission and the representatives submitted their respective observations on April 18, 2007. 7. On March 30, 2007, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered the submission of sworn declarations (affidavits) of seven witnesses and five expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State, to which the parties were given the opportunity to submit their respective observations.4 Furthermore, due to the particular circumstances in this case, the President convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing in order to receive the declarations of three alleged victims, two witnesses and two expert witnesses, as well as the final oral arguments of the parties regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations, and costs. The State requested that the date of the public hearing be postponed, and the parties were given the opportunity to submit observations on this matter. Having considered said observations, on April 14, 2007 the President reaffirmed his prior decision regarding the date of the hearing, and partially modified the March 30th Order, granting the parties more time to submit the sworn written testimonies and expert declarations, as well as their final written arguments.5 The public hearing in this case was held on May 9 and 10, 2007, during the seventy-fifth regular session of the Court.6 3 When the application was notified to the State, the Court informed it of its right to designate an ad hoc Judge in this case. On October 6, 2006, the State designated Mr. Alwin Rene Baarh as ad hoc Judge. Mr. Baarh participated in the oral hearing in the present case, and subsequently informed the Court that, for reasons of force majeur, he could not participate in the deliberation of the present Judgment. 4 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on March 30, 2007. 5 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on April 14, 2007. 6 The following were present at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paolo Carozza, Commissioner and Delegate, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed and Juan Pablo Albán A., advisers; (b) for the representatives: Fergus MacKay, attorney for the Forest Peoples Programme, and (c) for the State: Soebhaschandre Punwasi, Agent; Eric Rudge, deputy Agent; Hans Lim A Po, Lydia Ravenberg, Margo Waterval, Reshma Alladin and Monique Pool.