4 and for the implementation of the development process proposed in the document “Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Moiwana Village,” submitted to the Court during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8). In its notes, the Secretariat repeated its request and indicated that once a schedule was received, the Commission and the representatives would have an opportunity to submit observations to all of the State’s submissions (supra Having Seen clause 11). Finally, through its note of October 28, 2010, the Secretariat indicated that due to the State’s failure to submit the requested schedule, the parties would have until November 3, 2010, for the submission of observations to the representatives' brief of February 28, 2010, and the State’s brief of March 2, 2010 (supra Having Seen clauses 10 and 11). 13. The brief of November 5, 2010, whereby the Commission submitted observations to the representatives' brief of February 28, 2010, and the State’s brief of March 2, 2010 (supra Having Seen clauses 10 and 11). 14. The brief of November 12, 2010, whereby the State submitted information on the transfer of the amounts still owed to the development fund and the implementation of the development process proposed in the document “Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Moiwana Village” (supra Having Seen clause 12). 15. The brief of November 15, 2010, in which the representatives submitted observations to the State’s brief regarding the transfer of monies to the development fund and the implementation of the development process referred to above (supra Having Seen clauses 12 and 14). 16. The brief dated November 17, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission submitted observations to the State’s brief regarding the transfer of monies to the development fund and the implementation of the development process referred to above (supra Having Seen clauses 12 and 14). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Suriname became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on November 12, 1987. 3. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Thus, States must ensure that the decisions of the Court are