-8- concrete measures taken with respect to the aspects of the Judgment which remain pending. 8. The communication dated September 20, 2006, received two days later at the Secretariat, by which Suriname responded to the written comments made by the Commission to the State’s first report and declared that: a) the Judgment given by the Court was not for the attacks and killings that took place in November 1986 in the Maroon Village Moiwana, since these occurrences took place before the State became a party to the American Convention and accepted jurisdiction of the Court in November 1987. By ruling as it did, the Court in effect accepted the Commission’s request for the Tribunal to confer jurisdiction ex post facto over the events of November 1986; b) the National Commission on Land Rights (NCLR) has a mandate that includes the issue of land rights of the community in Moiwana. However, the State must coordinate a national land rights policy and cannot approach one tribal group individually without regard to the remainder of the country. The NCLR has conducted several meetings, but they have been postponed because of flooding in the interior of the country. The State will make certain to comply with this aspect of the Judgment shortly; c) the State is responsible under international law for the implementation of the Judgment of the Court. The State has allocated US $ 1,200,000 as ordered for the community development fund but reserves the right to make certain the that funds are disbursed effectively according to the specified plans and proposals aimed at housing, health, and education. The State will release the funds for these projects when it is satisfied that the community development fund has performed its required duties to develop and present such project proposals; d) the State requests information regarding which members of the Moiwana community will return in order to ensure that development can be brought effectively to the community as a whole; e) the State will not make funds from the community development fund available to cover the costs of the Representatives’ travel expenses. The Board of community development fund has not submitted a detailed proposal indicating the total amount of such costs, nor are such costs covered by the Judgment. When these costs are submitted as part of the detailed project proposals, the State will transfer funds for those purposes; f) in the meantime, the State will place the US $ 1,200,000 in an account by which the Moiwana community will benefit from the accrued interest; g) the Department of Finance indicates that the funds to be transferred to the organizations as required by the Judgment will be disbursed within few days after the date of this communication; and h) the State will transfer US $ 8,000 as ordered to the Association Moiwana. The travel expenses of its Chairman should be covered by this amount and not by the funds allocated to the community development fund, as they are “future costs of the Association Moiwana”. 9. The letter dated May 2nd, 2007, in which the Secretariat requested the State to submit, before May 21, 2007, any audio and/or video records of the public ceremony, as previously requested (supra Having Seen paragraph 5) and required the State to provide, in its second report, specific information on the following points: