ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAME CASE OF THE SARAMAKA PEOPLE HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter, “the Judgment”) delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Court” or “the Court”) on November 28, 2007. 2. The Judgment on interpretation of the Saramaka Judgment delivered by the Court on August 12, 2008. 3. The Order of the President of the Court of April 20, 2010, convening the Republic of Suriname (hereinafter also “the State” or “Suriname”), the representatives of the Saramaka People (hereinafter “the representatives”), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) to a private hearing on monitoring compliance, which was held at the seat of the Court on May 26, 2010. 4. The Order on monitoring compliance with the Judgment issued by the Court on November 23, 2011. 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of April 16, 2013, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it convened the parties and the Commission to a private hearing on monitoring compliance in this case, to be held on May 28, 2013. 6. The brief of the representatives of the victims of the case of the Saramaka People of May 22, 2013, in which they indicated that “during the last six weeks, the State ha[d] taken coordinated measures to intimidate and coerce the Saramaka to renounce their [legal] representatives in relation to the implementation of the Judgment.” Specifically, they indicated that, on several occasions, Gaama (Chief) Belfon Aboikoni had been threatened that the State would not continue paying his salary if he did not renounce the representatives of the Saramaka People before the Court. These threats had been made by an adviser to the President of Suriname, and by a Head Captain, member of the State’s delegation to the hearing on May 28, 2013. On that occasion, the representatives asked that the Court require the State to abstain

Select target paragraph3