14 observes that the State only reported a payment of USD $600,000.00 (six hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America) into the fund, while the representatives’ statement that “the funds have been transmitted” seems to imply that the State has completely fulfilled the obligation established in Operative Paragraph thirteen of the Judgment. Given that the Court was not offered evidence to verify these statements, it considers that this obligation has been partially complied with and that the State and the representatives must provide it with information regarding whether an amount of USD $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) was also deposited into the community development fund in order to fully comply with this order of the Court and whether any interest payments remain pending.21 In that regard, the Court reminds the State that the three-year deadline established in the Judgment for the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages expired on December 19, 2010.22 g) Reimburse costs and expenses (Operative Paragraph fourteen of the Judgment) 43. The State reported that it paid USD $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the Forest Peoples Programme and USD $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the Association of Saramaka Authorities. 44. The representatives acknowledged that the payment for costs and expenses had been received, but “not within the timeframe set by the Court.” 45. The Commission did not refer to this obligation in its most recent communications to the Court. 46. In light of the information submitted by the State and the representatives, the Court finds that the State has complied with Operative Paragraph fourteen of the Judgment. h) Request for a public hearing and for communication with the Inter-American Development Bank 47. The representatives requested that the Court convene a public hearing in this case so that the parties may submit additional information to its consideration. In their brief of September 30, 2011, the representatives also requested that the Court “communicat[e] with the Inter-American Development Bank to request that it ensur[e] respect for the […] [J]udgment in projects that it may finance in Suriname and that may affect the Saramaka people and their territory.” 48. The Commission considered the representatives’ request for a public hearing so that the State may submit detailed information on this case “to be pertinent.” 49. The State did not submit observations on the representatives’ requests (supra Considering clause 47). 21 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, para. 212. 22 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, para. 208. The Judgment was served upon the State on December 19, 2007.