18 village of Alfonsdorp has led to tensions in the area and, “[a]s it stands now, it is entirely possible that the five houses constructed by the State are in a location that will not be agreed to by the indigenous peoples and other Cottica N'djuka communities and […] will therefore have to be dismantled and moved elsewhere.” Finally, the representatives indicated that the draft report issued by the Amazon Conservation Team as part of the SSDI project (supra Considering Clause 19) is “inaccurate to the extent that it claims that the State is leading an adequate and effective participation process” toward a long-term development plan. According to the representatives, the draft report also suggests that the Moiwana Community leadership should apply for legal status either as a traditional authority under the Minister of Regional Development or as an independent foundation so that the State may transfer responsibility for administrative and financial matters to Community leaders.” 36. The Commission “recognize[d] and value[d] that [the State] has transferred the majority of the total sum of funds ordered by the Court.” However, it stated that “the information [provided by the State] is unclear as to the [amount pending] and as to the specific date [on] which [the final transfer will be carried out].” Therefore, the Commission requested that the Court require the State to submit this information, as well as documentation to certify previous transfers. It also expressed concern that “no information has been provided by the State to indicate the amounts” that health, housing, and educational projects for the Moiwana Community have received. Furthermore, the Commission inquired as to the precise location of the houses constructed by the State and as to whether the victims had been informed of their construction, and expressed concern that the houses may have been erected on territory that did not belong to the Moiwana. 37. The Court values that the State has taken steps toward the implementation of this order. It notes, in particular, that the State has transferred at least some of the monies ordered in the Judgment35 to the development fund and has submitted video footage of the houses it has built for the Moiwana Community. Even so, the Court considers that the information provided by the State is insufficient for the purpose of evaluating the extent of its compliance, particularly with respect to the five following issues: 1) the amount of the monies transferred to the development fund; 2) the construction of houses; 3) the location of these houses; 4) the construction of facilities for education and healthcare; and 5) the status of the SSDI project. First, according to the schedule submitted to the Tribunal, the total amount ordered in the Judgment was to be paid in five installments; four of these were scheduled to be paid over the years 2006 to 2009 and one was scheduled for the year 2010. Therefore, it is not clear what the State means when it indicates that the “last two transfer[s] of funds” were sent on October 5, 2010, and that one remains pending. The Court notes that the State has not indicated the date on which it will pay the total amount awarded in the Judgment to the development fund; nor is it clear whether the State has paid interest on the amounts owed to the Community. Second, the Court notes that the Amazon Conservation Team’s May 2009 draft report issued as part of the SSDI project (supra Considering clause 19) refers to the construction of five of the thirty houses that are to be built and indicates that “[t]he 35 The Court ordered the transfer of US $1,200,000.00 to the development fund. Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 214.