-8- 21. Also, in this 2011 Order, the Court indicated that “the award of any new concession in these territories after December 19, 2007, the date of which the Judgment was notified, without the consent of the Saramaka and without previously conducting social and environmental impact assessments, would constitute a direct violation of the Court’s ruling and, consequently, of the international treaty-based obligations of the State.” 13 22. The Court observes that the information forwarded by the representatives in this regard is closely related to compliance with operative paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Judgment. Furthermore, in this case, since notification of the Judgment, the Court has been monitoring its execution pursuant to the articles of the Convention that regulate this competence. 14 Moreover, within this framework, the Court has even held two private hearings on monitoring compliance (2010 and 2013) in order to supervise implementation of the Judgment, and has also issued an Order in this regard (supra having seen paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 8). 23. Consequently, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the analysis and assessment of the information provided concerning the mining exploitation project on Saramaka territory is related to monitoring compliance with the Judgment, so that it is unnecessary to adopt provisional measures in relation to this aspect. 15 24. In this regard, the Court recalls that the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction are bound to obey the obligations established by the Court. This requirement includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the steps taken to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in its decisions. The prompt observance of the State’s obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each element ordered by the latter is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 16 25. Based on the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment in this case, the State must forward the Court a complete, detailed and specific report on the alleged award of the mining concession on the Saramaka territory to IAMGOLD, in which it must indicate: (a) the scope and content of the said concession, (b) whether the Saramaka People was consulted and what measures were taken to this end; (c) whether the said concession was preceded by environmental and social assessment studies, and (d) if applicable, the benefits for the Saramaka People; all of this pursuant to operative paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Judgment. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority conferred on it by Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Articles 27, 31(2) and 69 of the Rules of Procedure, 13 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, nineteenth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Provisional measures with regard to Nicaragua. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2007, twelfth considering paragraph. 15 16 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, eleventh considering paragraph. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Abril Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, sixth considering paragraph.