5 confront concession holders to demand a share in the benefits. Therefore, Suriname considered it should be left to the State, rather than the Saramaka people, to devise the required system of “benefit sharing”. The State did not ask a specific question on this matter, but rather requested “the Court’s interpretation as to the understanding of the State with regard to this aspect of the Judgment”. 12. Regarding the effective participation of the Saramaka people in the process of issuing concessions in their traditional territory, the Commission observed that “[t]hroughout the judgment the Court has made very clear that the participation of the Saramaka People in such process shall take place in conformity with their customs and traditions”. Regarding the benefit sharing with the Saramaka people from concessions granted within their territory by the State, the Commission observed “that the Court’s sentence does not require the State to act in such a way as to obstruct development, but rather sets forth the principles under which development may take place in conformity with respect for the rights of those affected by it.” Furthermore, the Commission considered that the “point raised does not constitute a valid basis for a request for interpretation under Article 67 of the Convention”. 13. The representatives observed that the Judgment clearly indicates “that the modes of effective participation and the entity or entities that shall participate in decision making are to be determined by the Saramaka in accordance with their custom and tradition” and then communicated to the State. “Conversely, if Suriname is uncertain about these matters, it may communicate with the Saramaka to seek clarity”. Additionally, the representatives observed that “the legislative and administrative basis for the benefit sharing system must be developed and determined with the effective participation of the Saramaka, not by the State alone”, and that “the Saramaka must also effectively participate in decisions about benefit sharing on a case-by-case basis”. 14. The issues raised by the State refer to (a) the establishment of a consultation mechanism with the Saramaka people, and (b) the determination of the beneficiaries of a “just compensation” in relation to development and investment projects in Saramaka territory. The Court considers that both concerns are addressed in the Judgment, particularly, but not exclusively, in paragraphs 81, 100, 101, 129-140, 147, 155, 164, 170, 171, 174, and 194, and in Operative Paragraphs 5 through 9. Nevertheless, the Court deems that a reiteration of how the Judgment addresses these issues is pertinent. a) Regarding the establishment of a consultation mechanism with the Saramaka people 15. Regarding the first issue, the Court reiterates that the State has a duty to consult with the Saramaka people in order to comply with several of the Court’s orders, and that the Saramaka must determine, in accordance with their customs and traditions, which tribe members are to be involved in such consultations. 16. In this regard, the Judgment orders the State to consult with the Saramaka people regarding at least the following six issues: (1) the process of delimiting, demarcating and granting collective title over the territory of the Saramaka people;6 (2) the process of granting the members of the Saramaka people legal recognition of their collective juridical 6 In Operative Paragraph 5 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 194(a), the Court ordered the State to “delimit, demarcate, and grant collective title over the territory of the members of the Saramaka people, in accordance with their customary laws, and through previous, effective and fully informed consultations with the Saramaka people, without prejudice to other tribal and indigenous communities.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 194(a).