5 9. The representatives informed that no steps have been taken to delimit, demarcate, and title Saramaka territory, “nor has the State sought to formally consult with the Saramaka about the regularization of their territory.” In fact, “[t]he Saramaka wr[ote] the State [on March 13, 2008] to seek a meeting on this subject […] but have [not yet] receive[d] a formal response.” 10. The Commission “note[d] that the State did not submit information regarding how [the SSDI project] has or will have a direct effect in the present case.” In addition, the Commission observed that “the State has not taken any steps to comply with this measure of reparation [and as such] request[ed] the [State provide] specific information [regarding] the measures to be carried out, with due consultation, along with a timeline for the[ir] implementation.” 11. Providing sufficient information on compliance with the Judgment is a duty of the State, repeatedly stated by this Court.4 In this regard, the President considers that the Court requires more information regarding the SSDI project and or other steps it has taken to delimit, demarcate and grant collective title to the Saramaka people. * * * 12. With regard to the State’s obligation to grant the members of the Saramaka people legal recognition of the collective juridical capacity pertaining to the community to which they belong so as to ensure full exercise and enjoyment of their right to communal property and collective access to justice, the State has not informed on this particular obligation. 13. The representatives observed that “[t]he State has not complied with this order to date, nor has it commenced any consultation with the Saramaka on how to comply.” 14. The Commission “respectfully request[ed] that the Court require that the State provide more specific information in this regard.” 15. The President considers that the Court does not have sufficient data regarding the steps the State will take to effectively grant the members of the Saramaka people legal recognition, to which it requests the State provide said information. * * * 16. Regarding the removal or amendment of the legal provisions that impede protection of the right to property of the members of the Saramaka people and the adoption, through consultations, legislative, administrative, and other measures as may be required, the State point[ed] to the creation of the “[t]he [SSDI] project].” (supra Considering Clause no. 8). In addition, for “smooth implementation of the judgment[, the State created an Executive Committee] comp[rised of]: [a] 4 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, Considering clause No. 9; Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 20, and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 30, 2007, Considering clause No. 7.