-7- c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) well as that collected in the process of litigation of the present case before the Court, make reference to significant information that requires investigation by the pertinent State authorities. It is crucial that the State undertake its role with due diligence. The lack of compliance with this obligation continues to obstruct the survivors’ and family members’ capacity to retake their lives as a community with the necessary ties to their traditional lands. in regard to the recovery and transfer of the remains of those killed in the attack, the State has provided no information indicating that the necessary efforts, such as the use of the latest technological and scientific methods available, are underway. The application of the Court’s requirements in this regard depends on the State applying due diligence; it does not depend on the family members of those killed, who should be duly consulted in terms of how such remains are to be treated and returned for final disposition according to their cultural norms; in relation to the adoption of legislative, administrative and other measures necessary to ensure the property rights of the community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled, to date, the totality of information available indicates only that a National Commission on Land Rights was created to submit general recommendations on the land situation in Suriname. Indications suggest that this National Commission has no funding, has no specific mandate vis-à-vis the implementation of the Court’s Judgment, and has not met with the Moiwana survivors or family members or their representatives. Nor is it clear what effect the recommendation of the National Commission on the Land Rights would ultimately have once they will be submitted, or what timeline might apply to any possible implementation. Accordingly, the Commission is unable to identify any concrete steps toward timely compliance with this aspect of the Court’s Judgment; given the terms of the Court’s Judgment requiring the implementation of a community development fund, the Commission understands that it is the tripartite implementing body that is to have the decisive role in how the programs are designed and implemented, and how the funds are to be disbursed; news media reports indicate that there has been full compliance with the Judgment’s order to hold a public ceremony of recognition and apology by the State; with respect to the construction of a public memorial, the Commission notes that compliance has not been achieved within the time period stipulated by the Court, but respective reports indicate concrete progress on this aspect of the Judgment; regarding the payment of compensation for material and moral damages, the Commission wishes to recognize the efforts made by the State to comply with this aspect of the Court’s Judgment in a timely manner with respect to the majority of the beneficiaries. The Commission lacks detailed information in order to confirm how many beneficiaries have yet to be paid, and the form in which those funds are presently being held. the payment of compensation for costs to the organizations established in the Judgment has not been done to date. The terms of the Judgment indicate the amounts each organization is to receive. The amount to be paid to Association Moiwana is definitive and is not subject to the presentation of further proof to the State. the Commission requests that the Court maintain supervision of compliance with its Judgment and require that the State provide detailed information on the