9 without the institution of effective mitigating measures.” 15. The representatives also informed the Court of a project for the upgrading of the Afobaka Road in Saramaka territory. While the Saramaka are not necessarily opposed to the project, the representatives highlighted that they had not been consulted on the matter, despite the fact that the upgrade “will greatly increase access to Saramaka territory by a variety of users.” The representatives also indicated that the InterAmerican Development Bank did not disburse funds requested by the State for the purpose of conducting environmental and social impact assessments of this project. Finally, in their observations to the State's communication of July 29, 2011, the representatives alleged that “the State ha[d] […] issued a land title within Saramaka territory […] on 16 July 2010” in the name of a private company “for the purpose of maintaining a tourism resort,” without the effective participation of the Saramaka people. The representatives maintained that this represents “an internationally illegitimate expropriation of Saramaka lands in fav[o]r of a non-Saramaka person without […] due process.” In light of the above, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to immediately revoke both the land title and the concessions granted in Saramaka territory after the Judgment was issued, to “immediately commenc[e] structured discussions with the Saramaka people [on] the road upgrade so as to obtain their consent, including [with respect to] how appropriate ESIAs may be undertaken with their effective participation and in accordance with international standards and best practice, and [to] compensat[e] the Saramaka for any damages sustained to date.” 16. The Commission considered “the fact that the State ha[d] allegedly granted new concessions and land titles [in Saramaka territory] after the […] judgment” had been served to be of “grave concern.” Thus, it requested that the Court require the State to submit “complete and detailed information” on this matter. 17. The Court notes that despite its repeated requests (supra Having Seen clauses 7, 10, and 13), the State has not adequately reported on the measures taken to review concessions existing in Saramaka territory prior to the issuance of the Judgment, nor on the alleged upgrades to the Afobaka road or the logging and mining concessions allegedly granted in Saramaka territory after the Judgment was served. Regarding this latter point, the Court observes that the representatives have submitted evidence that a mining concession was granted in Saramaka territory in April of 2008,12 that a logging concession was granted in May 2010,13 and, in its observations to the State's communication of July 29, 2011, that a land lease was granted to the “Anaula Nature Resort NV” on July 16, 2010 for the purpose of carrying out “tourism activities.”14 18. In that regard, the Court reminds the State that in its Judgment, it ordered Suriname to abstain, until the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of Saramaka territory has been carried out, from acts which might lead the agents of the State or third parties acting with its acquiescence or tolerance to affect the existence, value, use, or enjoyment of that territory, unless the State had obtained the free, informed, and prior consent of the Saramaka people.15 At the same time, the Court held that: 12 Cf. Letter of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Geological and Mining Department, of December 14, 2009 (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome I, folio 267). 13 Cf. Grant of concession from the Minister of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management to Kayserberg Industry N.V. (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome I, folio 553). 14 Cf. Grant of land lease for tourism activities from the Minister of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management to Anaula Nature Resort NV (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome I, folio 658). 15 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, para. 194 a).