12 subordinated compliance with this order to a “national process for implementing the [Saramaka People judgment],” and stressed that the existence of efforts to regularize community property rights at the national level “does not relieve the State of its obligations […] in the instant case.” According to the representatives, “the State has also failed to consult with the victims, the Cottica N'djuka people generally, and the neighbouring indigenous communities about these measures [or] in order to obtain their consent to delimitation, demarcation[,] and titling.” They consider that “structured consultations” are necessary so that this latter process may commence, “irrespective of whether the legislative framework is [yet] in place.” Furthermore, the representatives indicated that two years after its completion, the “Final Report” of the National Commission (supra Considering clause 19) has received no official comment, and there is no evidence to show that the State is actively considering its recommendations. They stated, moreover, that the National Commission “lacked any meaningful funds to carry out its mandate and barely met with representatives of indigenous and tribal peoples.” While the representatives generally endorsed the Final Report, they indicated that some of its recommendations “potentially contradict the Court’s jurisprudence.”24 21. The representatives also expressed several objections to the SSDI project (supra Considering clause 19). They first questioned the ACT's impartiality and independence, given that its Chairperson of the Board “represented the State before the Court in [the case of the Moiwana Community] and continues to [do so] today,” and “has repeatedly advocated positions that may be characterised as detrimental to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.” The representatives also indicated that the ACT “has little, if any, experience regularizing indigenous and tribal peoples' rights.” They further stated that there has been a lack of meaningful participation by indigenous and tribal peoples in the design and oversight of the SSDI project. For “these and other reasons,” the project “has been rejected by the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname, the national indigenous peoples' organization, and by the Saramaka people.” Additionally, because the project is national in scope, the representatives found that it is of little relevance to the State’s compliance in this specific case. Moreover, according to the representatives, one of the entities funding the SSDI project will provide “no further financing” for its activities because “an investigation of that project concluded that it had been conducted in a non-participatory manner and without due regard to the wishes of indigenous and tribal peoples.” 22. The representatives also had substantive disagreements with the report. They noted that it contains factual errors, as well as statements “that are likely contrary to the Court’s jurisprudence.” Furthermore, the representatives considered that the report placed “undue reliance on community land use mapping, which […] does not provide much insight into indigenous and tribal peoples’ customs, laws[, values and] land tenure systems,” all of which must be considered in the required process of delimitation, demarcation, and titling. They stated that instead of respecting 24 The representatives cited the recommendation “that the law contain a distinction in terms of rights between residential areas and areas used for hunting and fishing, including different rights in relation to the granting [of] concessions in th[ose] respective areas,” as an example. They also singled out the recommendation that the property rights of third parties be upheld over those of indigenous and tribal peoples, noting that it only provides for compensation and fails to recognize “that a right to restitution may apply, particularly given indigenous and tribal peoples' profound relationships to their territories.”