-2from interfering in the process of selecting the representatives of the Saramaka People, and that it cease all the attempts to intimidate and coerce the Saramaka representatives and authorities. 7. The note of the Secretariat of May 24, 2013, in which, on the instruction of the President of the Court, it reminded the State that, pursuant to Article 53 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “States may not institute proceedings against witnesses, expert witnesses, or alleged victims, or their representatives or legal advisers, nor exert pressure on them or on their families on account of statements, opinions, or legal defense presented to the Court.” 8. The private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment in this case, held on May 28, 2013, which was attended by representatives of the Commission, the State, and the victims. During the hearing, the representatives of the victims referred to specific threats and acts of intimidation against Gaama Aboikoni and other Saramaka leaders, and expressly requested that the Court adopt provisional measures (infra having seen paragraph 6). The State affirmed that its officials had not made any kind of threat against Saramaka leaders. During this hearing, the President of the Court asked the State to provide, within six weeks, a report on compliance with the Judgment in which it also referred to the facts denounced by the representatives. 9. The note of the Secretariat of June 6, 2013, in which, on the instructions of the Court in plenary, it reiterated to the State the request that it forward a complete and detailed report on compliance with the Judgment, as well as information on the supposed acts of intimidation against Saramaka leaders. 10. The briefs of July 9, 10, 11 and 26, 2013, in which Suriname presented information on compliance with the Judgment and, with regard to the representatives’ request, denied that it had given instructions to anyone to put pressure on Gaama Aboikoni or Head Captain Wanze to renounce their representatives. The State also asserted that the representatives’ allegations were without grounds and that the persons supposedly intimidated had not forwarded specific statements with regard to the said incidents. 11. The brief of August 5, 2013, in which the representatives, among other matters, presented written statements by several Saramaka leaders “confirming” the threats and the acts of intimidation perpetrated by State agents. In this regard, they reiterated their request that the Court adopt measures to protect the personal integrity and safety of the Saramaka leaders and of the representatives while they were working to ensure the implementation of the Judgment, because the State was “carrying out an organized campaign of intimidation and coercion against the Saramaka leaders.” In addition, the representatives made another request for provisional measures related to the implementation of a mining exploitation agreement between the company, IAMGOLD, 1 and the State of Suriname, supposedly without the Saramaka People having given their prior informed consent in accordance with their traditions and customs. The representatives argued that the “viability of the Saramaka lands and territory for present and future generations […] is under imminent threat owing to the award of the mining rights.” The implementation of the mining exploitation project in Saramaka territory would result in “grave, irreparable and large-scale damage to the territory and resources of up to 33 Saramaka communities, as well as to the integrity of the Saramaka territory in general.” The urgency of the request, according to the representatives, stems from the fact that IAMGOLD could start its operations at any time. 12. The brief of August 23, 2013, in which the Commission indicated that it was crucial that the Court continue monitoring the situation of the Saramaka authorities, and that the essential relationship between tribal and indigenous peoples and their territory could require urgent 1 International African Mining Gold Corporation.