2
I
PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
1.
On March 17, 2008, the State submitted a request for an interpretation of the
Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs1 issued in this case on
November 28, 2007 (hereinafter “the Judgment”), based on Articles 67 of the Convention
and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. The State requested interpretation as to the “meaning
and scope” of several issues, which the Court hereby summarizes in the following order:
a)
with whom must the State consult to establish the mechanism that will
guarantee the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people ordered in the
Judgment;
b)
to whom shall a “just compensation” be given when, for example, only part of
the Saramaka territory is affected by concessions granted by the State; that is,
whether it must be given to the individuals directly affected or to the Saramaka
people as a whole;
c)
to whom and for which development and investment activities affecting the
Saramaka territory may the State grant concessions;
d)
under what circumstances may the State execute a development and
investment plan in Saramaka territory, particularly in relation to environmental and
social impact assessments, and
e)
whether the Court, in declaring a violation of the right to juridical personality
recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, took into consideration the State’s
arguments on that issue.
2.
On March 25, 2008, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following
the instructions of the Tribunal’s President, the Registrar of the Court (hereinafter “the
Registrar”) sent a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission), and
to the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) and informed them that
they had until May 5, 2008 to submit their written arguments. Additionally, the Registrar
reminded the State that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he request
for interpretation does not suspend the execution of the Judgment.”
3.
On April 28 and April 30, 2008, the representatives and the Commission,
respectively, requested an extension until May 19, 2008 in order to submit their written
arguments. The Court’s President granted both requests. On May 19, 2008, the Commission
and the representatives submitted their written arguments on the State’s request for an
interpretation of the Judgment.
1
Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.
Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172.