7 […] Saramaka areas.” The State mentioned that it had already developed a “sketch map” that was used by the Association of Saramaka Authorities to hold “consultations in […] Saramaka areas”; however, it did not submit this map to the Tribunal. With respect to the consultation that the State must carry out with the Saramaka people, the State reported that it has signed an agreement with the Association of Saramaka Authorities on the implementation of the Judgment, and that it is meeting on a weekly basis with representatives of the “Traditional Authorities of the Maroons and Indigenous people” in order to seek “solution models […] to solve the land rights issue of the Maroons and Indigenous people.” 9. The representatives indicated that the “SSDI project ha[d] been formally rejected by […] the Saramaka people” and stressed that “there are no disputes [regarding overlaps of land, a fact which] was confirmed in written agreements with [neighboring communities], all of which were submitted to the State.” They also confirmed that the State had cancelled the SSDI project and subscribed “an agreement with a number of institutions concerning support for the delimitation of Saramaka territory[.] […] [O]n this basis, a sketch map ha[d] been developed and used in internal meetings conducted by the Saramaka.” However, “the State ha[d] objected to the inclusion [in that map] of certain lands in the northern reaches of Saramaka territory [because] some of these lands were granted as plantations during the early colonial era [and] the title holders [could not] be ascertained at [the time].” According to the representatives, given “that the State [wa]s unable to even identify the ‘owners’ of these plantations, there [wa]s no reason that the State [could not] recogni[z]e Saramaka ownership rights in accordance with standard condemnation procedures.” Additionally, the representatives indicated that the State had failed to meet the deadlines established in the agreement subscribed with the Saramaka on October 21, 2010, for the implementation of this order of the Court (supra Considering clause 8). They also indicated that “the weekly meetings referred to by the State in its report […] rarely directly concern[ed] matters specifically related to the implementation of the [J]udgment.” 10. The Commission indicated that the State has “failed to delimit the Saramaka territory.” It also indicated that according to the information provided by the representatives, “the State ha[d] not taken specific steps to comply with this measure of reparation, nor […] duly consulted the Saramaka people regarding the implementation of the order.” 11. The Court notes that the State and the representatives have come to an agreement regarding the former’s compliance with the Judgment and with this order in particular, and that regular meetings are being held to that end. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State has failed to comply with the deadlines established in that agreement.9 Furthermore, the Court notes that in its first and second reports on compliance, as well as during the private hearing, the State had indicated that the SSDI project would serve as the basis of its implementation of this order; however, the State has not indicated, now that the SSDI project has been cancelled, the specific measures it has taken pursuant to the agreement signed by Narena and CELOS (supra Considering clause 8) in order to implement this measure of reparation. Nor has the State indicated whether it accepts the representatives’ position that the Saramaka currently have no disputes with their neighbors regarding overlapping territories, or made any mention of the alleged disagreement with the victims regarding lands that may have been “granted as plantations during the early colonial era” (supra Considering clause 9). Additionally, the Court notes that its Judgment ordered the State to begin the process of delimitation, 9 “Agreement for the Implementation of the Sentence of the Inter-American Court [of] Human Rights Concerning the Saramaka People (Ser C No[.] 172 and Ser C No. 185)” (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome I, folios 661-664).