3 DECIDE[D], [U]nanimously, 1. [t]o declare […]the State’s request for interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs issued on November 28, 2007 in the Case of the Saramaka People [admissible], pursuant to paragraph 10 of th[e] Judgment. 2. [t]o determine the scope of the content of Operative Paragraphs [five] through [nine] of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs issued on November 28, 2007 in the Case of the Saramaka People, pursuant to chapters IV, V, VI, and VII of th[e] Judgment. […] 3. The reports submitted on August 6, 2009, and May 13, 2010, whereby the State informed the Court on the status of its compliance with the Judgment, and the communication of November 17, 2009, whereby the State submitted “three (3) additional documents [relating] to [its] [f]irst [periodic] [r]eport.” 4. The briefs of September 12, 2009, and June 8, 2010, whereby the representatives submitted observations to the State’s reports (supra Having Seen clause 3). 5. The briefs of December 3, 2009, and July 15, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted observations to the State’s reports (supra Having Seen clause 3). 6. The private hearing held at the seat of the Court on September 2, 2010.1 7. The Secretariat's note of September 14, 2010, whereby the Court required the parties to submit, by September 20, 2010, information regarding the alleged concessions granted in Saramaka territory without the victims' consent after the Judgment was issued, including information on whether environmental and social impact assessments (hereinafter “ESIAs”) were carried out in relation to those alleged concessions; information on any agreements reached between the parties concerning a schedule for compliance; any additional information on obligations pending fulfillment; and supporting documentation. The parties were also asked to submit information on: the date on which the amounts deposited in the development fund would be available for the victims to use; whether Chapter VII and Operative Paragraphs one through fifteen of the Judgment were published in the State's Official Gazette; the names of the radio stations that allegedly broadcasted the translations of the Judgment in the Saramaka language, as well as the dates and times of those broadcasts; and the places where Saramaka territory overlaps with the neighboring territories. Through its note of September 29, 2010, the Secretariat reiterated this request to the State. 8. The communications of September 20, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims and the Commission, respectively, submitted the information required by the Court (supra Having Seen clause 7). 1 The following persons appeared at the hearing: a) on behalf of the State, Patricia Meulenhof, Deputy Director of the Ministry of Regional Development and Head of the delegation; Renate Burgrust, Head of the Stafunit International Relations of the Ministry of Regional Development; Jornell Vinkwolk, Head of the Human Rights Bureau; Jozef Amautan, Senior Policy Officer of the Ministry of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management; and Monique Pool, Translator; b) on behalf of the representatives, S. Hugo Jabini, Association of Saramaka Authorities; Fergus MacKay, Counsel of Record, Forest Peoples Programme; and Alancay Morales Garro, Forest Peoples Programme; and c) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission, Lilly Ching Soto, Attorney of the Executive Secretariat.