19 [C]ommunity [had] request[ed] common areas with a church, sport facilities, [a] kindergarten, [a] school, [a] clinic, [and a] recreation facility,” as well as other projects. The report states that those initiatives must “be assessed for their feasibility, and then can be planned on the land in accordance with the [C]ommunity map.” However, it is unclear whether the implementation committee ordered by the Court to oversee the development fund36 had any role in the development of the draft report and its proposals or in the decision to build the five houses mentioned. 38. Third, and related to this last issue, it is unclear whether the five houses that were built are located in Moiwana territory. Accordingly, the Court highlights the importance of the delimitation and titling of Moiwana lands for the integral fulfillment of the orders contained in the Judgment. Fourth, the draft report mentions that the Moiwana Community had requested the construction of facilities for education and healthcare, yet the State indicated at the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8) that programs on education and healthcare had been set aside at the request of the Community so that the construction of houses could be given top priority. The Court observes that the representatives did not provide information on this issue. However, the Court also notes that the State was asked to submit a schedule for the implementation of the “Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Moiwana Village” contained in the draft report on at least four separate occasions, yet no timeline has been received (supra Having Seen clauses 9 and 12). Fifth, as mentioned above (supra Considering clause 27), although the State indicated that the implementation of the SSDI project was “in a final phase,” it provided no further details on the matter and made no mention of the presentations of the ACT´s report to the victims and the government that were supposed to have taken place in February and March 2010, respectively. 39. Therefore, given that the State has transferred at least some of the monies ordered in the Judgment to the development fund, the Court finds that this obligation has been partially complied with. However, the Court highlights that the Judgment set a five-year deadline, running as of the date on which the latter was served, for the implementation of the health, housing, and educational programs established through that fund.37 Thus, the Court considers that the State must transfer the full amount ordered in the Judgment to the development fund as soon as possible. It must also provide the Court detailed information on the amounts that have already been transferred to it, the amounts still pending, a schedule containing the dates on which these transfers are to be executed, and whether the Moiwana Community has received the interest that has accrued on the amounts awarded. It must also provide supporting documentation with respect to the amounts it has already transferred to the development fund. 40. In addition, the State must inform the Court as to the implementation committee’s role in the development of the Amazon Conservation Team’s draft report and in the decision to build five houses as part of the State’s fulfillment of this obligation. Furthermore, the parties must inform the Court as to whether those five houses are in fact in Moiwana territory. Given that it has yet to delimit and 36 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, paras. 214-215. 37 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 214.