10 in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in order to guarantee that restrictions to the property rights of the members of the Saramaka people by the issuance of concessions within their territory does not amount to a denial of their survival as a tribal people, the State must abide by the following three safeguards: [f]irst, the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the Saramaka people, in conformity with their customs and traditions, regarding any development, investment, exploration[,] or extraction plan […]16 within Saramaka territory[;] [s]econd, the State must guarantee that the Saramak[a] will receive a reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory[;] [and third,] the State must ensure that no concession will be issued within Saramaka territory unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a prior environmental and social impact 17 assessment. 19. In light of the above, given that the titling of Saramaka lands has not yet been carried out (supra Considering clause 12), the Court considers that the granting of any new concessions in those territories after December 19, 2007, the date on which the Judgment was served, without the consent of the Saramaka and without prior environmental and social impact assessments, would constitute a direct contravention of the Court's decision and, accordingly, of the State's international treaty obligations (supra Considering clauses 3-6). 20. Consequently, the Court finds that the State must provide detailed information on whether it has reviewed concessions existing in Saramaka territory prior to the issuance of the Judgment. For each of these concessions, the State must report on: whether it has consulted with the Saramaka and ensured their effective participation in those reviews; how it is guaranteeing that the Saramaka will receive reasonable benefits from those concessions; and whether environmental and social impact assessments have been carried out. In addition, the State must report on all of the logging and mining concessions allegedly granted after the Judgment was served; on the title of land lease apparently granted to the “Anaula Nature Resort NV”; on any upgrades to the Afobaka road in Saramaka territory; and on any other action that could affect the existence, value, use, or enjoyment of the territory of the members of the Saramaka people. 21. With respect to the representatives' request that the Tribunal order the immediate revocation of the land title and concessions issued after the Judgment was served and that it compensate the Saramaka for any damages sustained to date due to upgrades on the Afobaka road (Considering clause 15), the Court notes that this was not ordered in the Judgment, and, therefore, exceeds the object of the present proceedings for monitoring compliance with the Saramaka Judgment. Consequently, the Court cannot grant the representatives’ request. b) The duty to ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are conducted prior to awarding a concession for any development or investment project within traditional Saramaka territory, and to implement adequate safeguards in order to minimize the damaging effects such projects may have upon the social, economic, and cultural survival of the Saramaka people (Operative Paragraph nine) 22. The State indicated that information on whether environmental and social impact 16 “By ‘development or investment plan,’ the Court mean[t] any proposed activity that may affect the integrity of the lands and natural resources within the territory of the Saramaka people, particularly any proposal to grant logging or mining concessions.” Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, footnote 127. 17 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 10, para. 129.