8 24. In Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, read in conjunction with paragraph 194(d), the Court ordered the State to adopt legislative, administrative and other measures necessary to recognize and ensure the right of the Saramaka people to […] reasonably share the benefits of [development and investment] projects with the members of the Saramaka people, should these be ultimately carried out. The Saramaka people must be consulted during the process established to comply with this form of reparation. […] 25. Thus, the determination of those beneficiaries must be made in consultation with the Saramaka people, and not unilaterally by the State. In any case, as the representatives mentioned in their written submissions, “these matters can be discussed and addressed during the consultations and process of reaching agreement on the legislative and administrative measures required to give effect to, inter alia, the benefit sharing requirement.” 26. Furthermore, regarding the State’s concern that there may be internal divisions among the Saramaka as to who can benefit from development projects, the Court observes that, pursuant to paragraph 164 of the Judgment, in the event that any internal conflict arises between members of the Saramaka community regarding this issue, it “must be resolved by the Saramaka people in accordance with their own traditional customs and norms, not by the State or this Court in this particular case.” 27. Consequently, the Tribunal reiterates that all issues related to the consultation process with the Saramaka people, as well as those concerning the beneficiaries of the “just compensation” that must be shared, must be determined and resolved by the Saramaka people in accordance with their traditional customs and norms, and as ordered by the Court in its Judgment. V PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 28. The State expressed its understanding that an environmental and social impact assessment is one of the requirements that this Court established in order to grant a concession in the territory belonging to the members of the Saramaka people. The State pointed out that the Court “extensively addressed the first and second requirements as listed in para. 129 [regarding consultation and benefit-sharing, but] did not elaborate separately on the third requirement [regarding prior environmental and social impact assessments (hereinafter “ESIA”)].” The State observed that, according to the Judgment, the impact caused by any concession must not be of such nature that amounts to a denial of the survival of the Saramaka people. The State presented two requests for interpretation related to this issue. First, it asked the Court to elaborate on the meaning and scope of environmental and social impact assessments. Second, it requested the Court to define the level of impact that is acceptable to protect the survival of the Saramaka. The State emphasized that an unbalanced interpretation of this requirement could lead to an obstruction of the development of Suriname. 29. Regarding the meaning and scope of the State’s obligation to guarantee the survival of the Saramaka people, the Commission understood the State to be asking the Court to confirm that there are acceptable levels of “impact” a proposed development plan may have on the Saramaka, as long as that impact does not amount to a denial of their survival. The Commission also considered that “when the Court uses the term ‘survival’ it does not refer