-11- i) Suriname’s second report provides no meaningful information about why the mandate of the NCLR was extended by almost one year, and no information is given about the activities of the NCLR to date. However, the Representatives have been informed that the NCLR intends to present the State with a draft legislative framework for addressing indigenous and tribal peoples’ property rights by December 3, 2007, which will be followed by an extensive consultation process with indigenous and tribal peoples. Once this process will be completed, the Government will have to accept or amend the proposal, legislate and then implement the legislation, which could take a number of years more to reach its conclusion; j) given that the State shall comply with its obligation to regulate land rights issues in Moiwana within a “reasonable time”, and that the above-mentioned process may continue for years to come, the Representatives consider that Suriname has yet to provide any timetable or other indication of when it will comply with this order; k) until the territories from which the Moiwana community was expelled have been delimited, demarcated and titled, the SFOMG cannot begin to implement the activities of the development fund, which require housing and other public services for those who decided to return. Houses and a school and health centre cannot be constructed until the location of the land and territory in question is ascertained, agreed upon, legally recognized and secured, which requires the involvement and consent of all parties, including the neighbouring indigenous communities. The State has thus far failed to consult with the victims and the affected indigenous and Maroon communities to that respect; l) the Representatives are not aware that unusual weather phenomena, as the State claims, are to be blamed for the delay in completing the monument commemorating those killed at Moiwana; and m) they requested the Court to order that: i. the State provide detailed information on any progress it may have made in carrying out an investigation and initiating a judicial process within a specific period of time. In this regard, the State shall be required to provide a timetable containing verifiable benchmarks by which progress may be assessed; ii. the State agree with the victims and representatives on a mechanism by which their testimony can be taken, with due guarantees for their safety, and that the nature of this mechanism be reported in writing to the Court within a specific period of time; iii. the State immediately begin dialogue with the victims about the return of the remains and that it seek and obtain technical support to locate said remains within a specific period of time; iv. the State immediately transfer the sum of US$ 1,200,000.00 to a bank account in the name of SFOMG and that an annual operating budget including travel and related expenses for Mr. Ajintonea be separately allocated to the SFOMG; v. the NCLR meet with the Moiwana community, the representatives of the Cottica N’djuka people and the neighbouring indigenous peoples’ communities to discuss implementation of the Court’s orders set forth in paragraph 209-211 of the Judgment; and vi. the State provide the Court with a timetable of the latter’s orders as set forth in paragraphs 209-211 of the Judgment within a 90 day period. 12. The brief dated July 25, 2007, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded its observations on the State’s second report and observed, inter alia, that: