2 I PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On March 17, 2008, the State submitted a request for an interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs1 issued in this case on November 28, 2007 (hereinafter “the Judgment”), based on Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. The State requested interpretation as to the “meaning and scope” of several issues, which the Court hereby summarizes in the following order: a) with whom must the State consult to establish the mechanism that will guarantee the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people ordered in the Judgment; b) to whom shall a “just compensation” be given when, for example, only part of the Saramaka territory is affected by concessions granted by the State; that is, whether it must be given to the individuals directly affected or to the Saramaka people as a whole; c) to whom and for which development and investment activities affecting the Saramaka territory may the State grant concessions; d) under what circumstances may the State execute a development and investment plan in Saramaka territory, particularly in relation to environmental and social impact assessments, and e) whether the Court, in declaring a violation of the right to juridical personality recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, took into consideration the State’s arguments on that issue. 2. On March 25, 2008, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the Tribunal’s President, the Registrar of the Court (hereinafter “the Registrar”) sent a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission), and to the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) and informed them that they had until May 5, 2008 to submit their written arguments. Additionally, the Registrar reminded the State that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he request for interpretation does not suspend the execution of the Judgment.” 3. On April 28 and April 30, 2008, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, requested an extension until May 19, 2008 in order to submit their written arguments. The Court’s President granted both requests. On May 19, 2008, the Commission and the representatives submitted their written arguments on the State’s request for an interpretation of the Judgment. 1 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172.

Select target paragraph3