20 demarcate Moiwana lands (supra Considering clause 28), the State must also provide the Court with information as to how it chose the site for the five houses already built and for the other houses it has planned, if applicable. Moreover, the State must indicate whether it intends to follow the recommendations of the ACT´s draft report relating to this obligation. If so, it must ensure that its implementation of those recommendations adheres to the Judgment. The State must also submit a detailed schedule containing projected dates for the measures it will undertake in compliance with this obligation, which includes the Court’s orders relating to health and education. With respect to the transfer of administrative and financial responsibility to Community leaders, the Court reminds the State “that the right to have their juridical personality recognized by the State is one of the special measures owed to indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they are able to use and enjoy their territory in accordance with their own traditions. This is a natural consequence of the recognition of the right of members of indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights in a communal manner.”38 Finally, the Court reiterates that timely compliance with requests for information is an obligation under Article 68(1) of the Convention (supra Considering clause 3). f) Obligation to build a memorial in a suitable public location (Operative Paragraph seven of the Judgment) 41. The State reported that a monument was “delivered” to the Moiwana Community on November 27, 2007. 42. The representatives indicated that “the monument has [been] constructed to the satisfaction of the victims and subsequent to agreement with the neighboring indigenous peoples.” 43. The Commission valued the construction of the monument as progress in the State’s compliance with the Judgment. 44. During the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8), the State submitted a compact disc containing video footage of the memorial built in compliance with Operative Paragraph seven of the Judgment. The Court values that the State carried out the construction of this memorial in consultation with the victims and considers that this order has been fulfilled. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 38 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 28, para. 172.