present observations on this report, he has not remitted any communication to this Court (supra having seen paragraph 4). Subsequently, in September 2017, the President of the Court required the State to provide documentation that would allow the Court to verify the assertions made in its May 2015 report7 (supra having seen paragraph 5). Between December 2019 and January 2020, Suriname sent certain documents, including a note dated January 10, 2020, signed by the victim of this case, Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux, addressed to the President of the Inter-American Court. In this communication, the victim expressed his views on compliance with the reparations ordered in the Judgment8 (infra consideranda 5 and 8) and indicated that “it would be advisable that [this] case be closed”. Next, the Court will assess the information presented in regard with the three reparations ordered and will determine the degree of compliance by the State. To this end, particular importance shall be placed in the aforementioned note signed by the victim of this case. A. Publication and dissemination of the judgment A.1. Measures ordered by the Court 4. In the seventh operative paragraph and in paragraph 147 of the judgment, the Court established that “the State must, within six months of notification of this Judgment, publish the following: a) the official summary of the […] Judgment developed by the Court in English, which must be translated to Dutch at the expense of the State, published in both languages, once in the official gazette and once in a national newspaper with widespread circulation; and b) the […] Judgment in its entirety in English, on an official website of the State, and remain available for a period of one year”. A.2. Considerations of the Court 5. Mr. Alibux explained in the note addressed to the Presidency of this Court (supra considerandum 3) the “personal and professional” reasons why he considers that the execution of this reparation measure would cause him harm, and why he would prefer for the publication and dissemination of the Judgment not be made9. The State indicated that it “agrees” with the will of the victim10. 7 The State was required to present “copy to the Court of any proof regarding the payment of ‘nonpecuniary damage and [the reimbursement of] costs and expenses” and “if available, any documentation that supports the State’s affirmayion that ‘Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux has indicated not to attach further interest in the implementation’ of the remaining reaparations ordered by the Court”. 8 Cf. Copy of the note of January 10, 2020, signed by the victim Liakat Ali Alibux, and addressed to the Presidency of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (annex to the State’s report of January 9, 2020). 9 Mr. Alibux referred to the negative effects of the media coverage and the public attention of the proceedings and the execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Suriname. He explained that said proceedings had a “tremendously negative impact on [his] family and [himself]”, and that, over the years, they had “gradually [been] able to cope with this and move on to normality in [their] personal and professional lives.” For this reason, he indicated that “a renewed attention regarding [his] case could give rise to a renewed process of stigmatization again [him] in the Surinamese society” based on “a verdict [… that was] executed more than sixteen years ago.” He added that this could even mean that he was “being punished for a second time for the same offense,” which would harm his “human dignity, [his] professional life and the protection and defense of [his] political and civil rights.” Cf. Copy of the note of January 10, 2020, supra note 8. 10 Cf. State’s report of January 8, 2020. -3-