11 assessments were carried out prior to the alleged awarding of concessions in Saramaka territory without the consent of the Saramaka people was “not yet available.” 23. The representatives indicated that the Afobaka Road project was being carried out and a stone mining concession had been granted in Saramaka territory despite that no prior ESIAs had been conducted. They also stated that they were unaware of whether an ESIA had been carried out prior to the grant of the abovementioned logging concession in May 2010 (supra Considering clauses 14, 15, 17, and 20). According to the representatives, “The Saramaka are therefore unable to evaluate possible risks and impacts, singular or cumulative, as part of considering whether to knowingly and voluntarily accept the project to upgrade the road.” 24. The Commission maintained that the State “did not [provide] specific information” on this issue. It therefore requested that the Court require information on the steps being taken in order to comply with this order. 25. With respect to the Afobaka road project and the logging concession granted in May 2010 (supra Considering clauses 14, 15, 17, and 20), the Court reminds the State that the granting of any new concessions without prior environmental and social impact assessments would constitute a direct contravention of the Court's decision, and, accordingly, of the State's international treaty obligations (supra Considering clauses 36). Furthermore, the Court notes that it lacks information on what the State is doing to ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are conducted by independent and technically competent entities prior to awarding concessions for development or investment projects in traditional Saramaka territory. 26. In light of the above, the Court considers it necessary that the State indicate, for each concession or development project mentioned in Considering clause 20 above, whether prior environmental and social impact assessments were carried out. In addition, the State must indicate how it will ensure that ESIAs are conducted as indicated in the Judgment and in the Judgment on Interpretation (supra Having Seen clauses 1 and 2) prior to awarding concessions in the future for any development or investment project within traditional Saramaka territory. c) The duty to legally recognize the collective juridical capacity of the members of the Saramaka people; to amend or remove legal provisions that impede the protection of the victims' right to property and to implement legal and other measures necessary to ensure their right to hold collective title; to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to guarantee the right of the Saramaka people to be consulted, or when necessary, the right to give or withhold their consent, with regard to development or investment projects that may affect their territory, and to reasonably share in the benefits of those projects; and to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to provide the victims with adequate and effective recourses against acts that violate their right to the use and enjoyment of property (Operative Paragraphs six, seven, eight, and ten) 27. The State initially reported that the SSDI project was to “provide the building blocks for […] the legal framework [and] collective rights.” However, the State subsequently informed the Court that it had “officially put a stop” to the project on December 15, 2010. 28. The representatives stated that “[t]here has been little progress on the development of the legislative and other measures required to give effect to the