7 21. The representatives and Commission discussed this obligation in relation to Operative paragraph 7 (supra Considering Clauses 17 and 18) and informed the following in relation to Operative Paragraph 8, specifically, inter alia: a) The representatives “are not aware of any efforts […] to review concessionaries within Saramaka territory and [inform that these mining and logging] concessions require review and potential modification[,] includ[ing] an assessment of benefit sharing measures that may be required in relation to these activities should they be deemed acceptable according to the criteria specified by the Court.” The Saramaka currently await the response of the State regarding its intentions to review concessions, in order to efficiently “facilitate communication with the relevant land owning entities.” b) The victims representatives “observe that the State [in May 2008] may have formally authori[z]ed the laying of an all-weather asphalt surface on the main road […] that connects Saramaka territory to Paramaribo[, without] formal[ly] consult[ing] with the Saramaka people about the process [in] direc[t] contraven[tion with] the extensive requirements set forth by the Court” and with no information if an environmental and social impact assessment [(hereinafter “ESIA”)] has been conducted in relation to the project. Nevertheless, the representatives have stated that while the “Saramaka are not necessarily opposed to the […] road, they [are] concern[ed] that the Court’s judgment is respected and that any negative environmental, cultural, and social impacts related to the upgrading of the road are adequately assessed and effectively mitigated.” 22. The President considers that the Court requires detailed information regarding the specific steps the State will adopt in order to satisfy this obligation in a timely manner. Likewise, the President requires more information regarding the current road project in Saramaka territory to assure the Saramaka people are fully informed regarding projects which affect the use and enjoyment of their land and compliance with the Courts Judgment. * * * 23. With regard to the State’s obligation to ensure ESIAs prior to awarding concession for any development project and to implement adequate safeguards and mechanisms in order to minimize the damaging effects of such projects, the State has not yet informed on this obligation. 24. The representatives “observe[d] that Suriname has yet to adopt legislation requiring ESIAs, although assessments are sometimes undertaken notwithstanding the lack of an applicable legal framework, and there are no applicable remedies should the State fail to require an ESIA.” Moreover, according to the representatives, the State has authorized a road project affecting Saramaka territory and has “failed to consult with the Saramaka [people], with respect for their traditions and culture or otherwise and has neither involved [nor informed] them [of] the ESIA process.” The representatives emphasized that “the Saramaka have not been afforded the opportunity […] to effectively participate in decision-making about