-16- renovation of police stations in the vicinity of Moiwana, as informed by the State, constitute effective measures toward compliance with this obligation. * * * 15. The State indicated in its first report that it has carried out consultations with some entities and individuals involved in the case in order to recover the remains of the victims and hand them over to the surviving relatives (supra Having Seen paragraph 4 (g)). However, according to the Representatives, the State has done nothing to locate and return the remains of the victims, nor has it consulted with the victims in this respect (supra Having Seen paragraph 11 (f)). The Court considers that there is not enough information from the State regarding this Judgment’s order to confirm that it has employed all the technical and scientific means possible, taking into account the relevant standards in the field, to recover promptly the remains of the victims killed during the attack of the Moiwana Village in 1986 (supra Having Seen paragraph 7(d)). The Tribunal stresses the importance of complying with this obligation indicated at Operative paragraph 2 of the Judgment, especially in light of the Moiwana community’s traditions. Furthermore, there is no information from the State regarding the Court’s order to analyse, within a reasonable timeframe, the human remains found at the grave site in 1993, and to communicate the results to the representatives of the victims. * * * 16. Regarding Operative Paragraph 3 of the Judgment, concerning the duty to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures as necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to their traditional territories from which they were expelled, the State informed the Court of the creation of a National Commission on Land Rights (NCLR) and addressed the difficulties that the coexistence of different ethnic and tribal groups may cause in the delimitation, demarcation and titling of traditional territories (supra Having Seen paragraph 8(b)). The Court takes note of these facts, and recognizes the efforts that the State is taking, including the appointment of Commission members, the extension of its term until the end of 2007, and the establishment of some operative rules (supra Having Seen paragraph 10 (e). However, it also takes into consideration the concerns expressed by the Representatives and the Commission, such as a lack of information with regard to the manner in which it has and will discharge its mandate; the fact that it has not met with Moiwana survivors to take the necessary measures to achieve the aims for which it has been created and its capability to give effect to this specific order of the Court (supra Having Seen paragraph 6(n)). Consequently, the Court emphasizes the lack of specific measures taken by the State towards full compliance with this aspect of the Court’s order. Without the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the Moiwana community’s traditional territories, the SFOMG might not be able to adequately implement the activities of the development fund (infra Considering paragraph 18-19), since it is important that the location of the land and territory in question be ascertained, agreed upon, legally recognized and secured in order to adequately proceed to the implementation of health, housing and education programmes. At this point, and according to its rulings in the Judgment on interpretation of the Judgment delivered by the Court on February 8, 2006 (supra Having Seen paragraph 3),