8 demarcation, and titling of traditional Saramaka territory within three months as of the date that the decision was served, and that the process was to be completed within three years of that date.10 Therefore, this measure of reparation should have been implemented by December 2010, at the latest.11 12. Consequently, this Court finds that the State has not complied with this obligation and must thus submit updated and detailed information on the specific measures it is implementing in order to delimit, demarcate, and title Saramaka territories as indicated in the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause 1). Additionally, the State must report on the specific actions it is taking in order to consult the Saramaka people on the implementation of this particular order, as well as on the results of those consultations. The State must also submit a detailed schedule for compliance with this obligation, given that it has already failed to meet the deadlines established in the Judgment, and it must tender the map referred to in the State's and the representatives' submissions (supra Considering clauses 8 and 9). Finally, the Court reminds the State that timely compliance with requests for information is an obligation under Article 68(1) of the Convention (supra Considering clauses 3, 5, and 6). a.2) The duty to abstain from acts which might lead agents of the State or third parties acting with its acquiescence or tolerance to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of Saramaka territories before their delimitation, demarcation, and titling has been carried out, and the duty to review concessions granted prior to the issuance of the Judgment 13. The State did not report on its compliance with the duty to review concessions existing on Saramaka territories prior to the issuance of the Judgment. With respect to the granting of new concessions in that territory (infra Considering clause 14), the State indicated that “The Ministry of Regional Development is in the process of gathering […] information [on this point] from the Ministry of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management.” When that information was gathered, “involved agencies [would] be informed and corrective measures [would] be taken, where needed.” 14. The representatives stated that they “are not aware of any efforts by the State to review [concessions existing] within Saramaka territory” before the Judgment was issued. Furthermore, during the private hearing, the representatives informed the Court that at least six logging and mining concessions had been granted in Saramaka territory since the date the Judgment was issued, allegedly without notice or consultation with the Saramaka people, and that several of these activities would require the latter's consent. According to the representatives, none of these concessions “have been revoked or modified by the State – despite formal petitions submitted by the Saramaka requesting the same. [Nor] has the State responded to their requests for information about these concessions.” To the best of the representatives' knowledge, “none of the logging concessions issued in Saramaka territory have been or are presently being exploited.” However, the stone mining concession “has been operational for over a year[,][…] to the extreme detriment of nearby Saramaka families […]. [According to the representatives, the] adverse impacts include the destruction of farming areas, extensive pollution of air and water sources by mining waste, the usurpation and denial of Saramaka ownership rights over [those] lands and resources, and the denial of their right to effectively control their traditional territory.” Moreover, the concession was allegedly issued without the completion of a “prior and independent environmental and social impact assessment and 10 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 194 a). 11 The Judgment was served upon the State on December 19, 2007.