12 [J]udgment. [Indeed,] not one single word has been drafted that could lead to the adoption of the required measures.” The representatives further observed that the State, “at the request of the Saramaka, [invited] the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to visit Suriname, inter alia, to discuss the development of legislation to recogni[z]e indigenous and tribal peoples' rights, including as ordered by the Court in the Saramaka People [J]udgment. This visit took place in late March 2011, [and the] Special Rapporteur submitted a note to the State in April 2011 setting forth his recommendations and views […]. However, to date, the State has given no indication that it intends to follow up on [those] recommendations or the Special Rapporteur's offer of technical support.” The representatives submitted a copy of the Special Rapporteur's note to the Tribunal. 29. The Commission considered it “worrisome” that despite “being an order of vital importance and despite the specific recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur submitted [i]n April 2011, the State has not adopted any legislative measures required to implement the [J]udgment,” nor indicated how it will “follow up” on those recommendations. It requested that the State provide detailed information regarding the Special Rapporteur's report and “welcome[d the report's suggestion] that the Surinamese government ‘seek the assistance of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to help facilitate and orient initial negotiations.’” 30. The Court notes that the Judgment ordered the State to implement the measures of reparation involving changes to its domestic law “within a reasonable time.”18 It also highlights that it has been almost four years since the Judgment was served, yet the State has not reported any progress toward the implementation of these orders after the SSDI project's cancellation in December 2010 (supra Considering clauses 8, 9, and 11). The Court thus considers it necessary that the State report, in detail, on the steps it is taking to comply with Operative Paragraphs six, seven, eight, and ten of the Judgment and submit any bills that it may have proposed to its legislative body. Additionally, the State must submit a schedule for its compliance with these measures of reparation. d) Duty to translate into Dutch and publish Chapter VII and Operative Paragraphs one through fifteen of the Judgment in the State’s Official Gazette and in another national daily newspaper (Operative Paragraph eleven of the Judgment) 31. The State reported that it had published, in Dutch, Chapter VII and Operative Paragraphs one through fifteen of the Judgment in a national daily newspaper and in Suriname’s Official Gazette of 19 November 2010, No. 17.002/10 (S.B. 2010 no. 168). 32. The representatives acknowledged that the State published the Dutch translation of the Judgment in a national daily newspaper and in the Official Gazette. 33. The Commission did not specifically refer to this obligation in its most recent communications to the Court. 34. In light of the information submitted by the State and the representatives, and given that there is no dispute between the parties, the Court finds that the State has complied with Operative Paragraph eleven of the Judgment. 18 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, para. 194 b), c), d), and f).