7 18. The Court deliberately omitted from the Judgment any specific consideration as to who must be consulted. By declaring that the consultation must take place “in conformity with their customs and tradition”, the Court recognized that it is the Saramaka people, not the State, who must decide which person or group of persons will represent the Saramaka people in each consultation process ordered by the Tribunal.13 19. Accordingly, the Saramaka people must inform the State which person or group of persons will represent them in each of the aforementioned consultation processes. The State must then consult with those Saramaka representatives to comply with the Court’s orders.14 Once such consultation has taken place, the Saramaka people will inform the State of the decisions taken, as well as their basis. 20. In a related issue, the Tribunal observes that the State seems to misunderstand the difference between the State’s obligation to consult with the Saramaka people, pursuant to their customs and traditions, and the content and purpose of the petitioning system described in Article 4415 of the Convention. 21. In paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Judgment, the Court addressed whether, in light of Article 44 of the Convention, the original petitioners had standing to file a petition before the Commission. The Court declared that any person or group of persons other than the alleged victims may file a petition before the Commission without first obtaining authorization from the Gaa’man, or, for example, from each member of the community. That analysis of the petitioning system under the American Convention bears no relation to the State’s obligation under the Judgment to consult with the Saramaka in accordance with their customs and traditions. 22. Thus, the decision as to whom should be consulted regarding each of the various issues mentioned above (supra para. 16) must be made by the Saramaka people, pursuant to their customs and traditions. The Saramaka people will then communicate to the State who must be consulted, depending on the issue that requires consultation. b) Regarding the determination of beneficiaries of a “just compensation” in relation to development and investment projects in Saramaka territory 23. The second issue addressed by the State, pertaining to the determination of the beneficiaries of a “just compensation”16 for development and investment projects in Saramaka territory, is closely related to the previous issue and is also addressed in the Judgment. Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 133. The Court declared in paragraph 137 that, “in addition to the consultation that is always required when planning development or investment projects within traditional Saramaka territory, the safeguard of effective participation that is necessary when dealing with major development or investment plans that may have a profound impact on the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people to a large part of their territory must be understood to additionally require the free, prior, and informed consent of the Saramakas, in accordance with their traditions and customs.” Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 137. 15 Article 44 of the Convention provides that “[a]ny person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” 16 In paragraph 138 of the Judgment the Court declared that the “concept of benefit-sharing, which can be found in various international instruments regarding indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights,[…] can be said to be inherent to the right of compensation recognized under Article 21(2) of the Convention […].” Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 1, para. 138. 13 14