-17- […] the Court deems pertinent to point out that, by recognizing the right of the Moiwana community members to the use and enjoyment of their traditional lands, the Court has not made any determination as to the appropriate boundaries of the territory in question. Rather, in order to render effective “the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled,” and having acknowledged the lack of “formal legal title”, the Court has directed the State, as a measure of reparation, to “adopt such legislative, administrative and other measures as are necessary to ensure” those rights, after due consultation with the neighboring communities. If said rights are to be properly ensured, the measures to be taken must naturally include “the delimitation, demarcation and titling of said traditional territories”, with the participation and informed consent of the victims as expressed through their representatives, the members of the other Cottica N’djuka villages and the neighboring indigenous communities. In this case, the Court has simply left the designation of the territorial boundaries in question to “an effective mechanism” of the State’s design.7 * * * 17. Although the State has emphasized the importance of the creation of a Foundation for the Development of the Moiwana Community (SFOMG) to be directed to health, housing and education programmes for the Moiwana community members, as requested by the Court in its Judgment, the Fund has not clearly complied with the requirements nor developed the functions established in paragraphs 213-215 and Operative Paragraph 5 of said Judgment. The Court recognizes that a tripartite implementation committee, the SFOMG, has been established to give an operative character to the Community Development Fund and representatives of the Moiwana community and the State together with a joint representative have been appointed. However, and although the Court has granted a five year term for the completion of the specific elements of the referred programmes, the Court notes that a year after the creation of said Committee, no information has been provided to indicate that any projects addressing health, housing and educational need have been funded, as expressed by the Commission. 18. That the State informs that budgets will be submitted prior to any further transfers, that funds “will be made available on the basis of reimbursements per project” and that “in the meantime the amount [will be] place[d] on an account by which the community will benefit from the interest the account will accrue.” According to the Representatives, the SFOMG should control the funds at its disposal and these should be deposited in an account in its name to ensure that the Moiwana community benefit from the accrued interest. They indicated that the sum of US$327,000.00, out of the total of the US$1,200,000.00 ordered by the Court, has already been transferred to the SFOMG. However, it is unclear if the SFOMG has been provided with the necessary operating costs to carry out its mandate and activities. Particularly, the State alleges that the travel expenses of the victims’ representative should be covered by the amount awarded to the Association Moiwana and not by the Community Development Fund, as they should be considered “future costs of the Association Moiwana”. The Court stresses that, according to the Judgment, the implementation committee is the organ in charge of the determination of the health, education and housing programmes, and therefore should be the one with authority to determine how to allocate the funds and implement the programmes. For this reason, the Court considers that there should be a margin of flexibility that needs to be respected, and concludes that, within this competence, the State shall guarantee that the Committee can perform all necessary operative and logistical matters of its mandate. To this 7 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2006. Series C No. 145, para 19.