15 [C]ommunity members traditionally lived until the events of November 29, 1986.” 31 This includes the granting of concessions in that territory. 27. Last, the Court notes that the reports of the National Commission and the Amazon Conservation Team contain different sets of recommendations on how to proceed with the implementation of this order,32 yet neither report has effectively incorporated the views of the victims in this case. With respect to the former, given that the report itself attests to the National Commission's lack of consultation with the victims,33 the Court finds the State’s apparent intention to use this report for the purpose of drafting legislation that will impact the Moiwana Community to be problematic. Additionally, the Court observes that the State has not provided any information as to why there has been no official response to this report's recommendations, which were issued almost three years ago (supra Considering clause 19). Similarly, the State has provided no information as to the results of its presentation of the draft report of the ACT to the Moiwana Community in February 2010 and to the Surinamese government in March 2010, nor has it explained what it meant when it stated that the SSDI project, which the ACT report is a part of, is “in a final phase,” particularly with respect to its recommendations on communal property rights. The Court highlights that it requested a schedule for the implementation of the development process proposed in the ACT’s report on at least four occasions, yet no timeline has been received (supra Having Seen clauses 9 and 12). Finally, the Court notes that the State allegedly carried out a national conference that resulted in a tentative timeline for compliance with this obligation and the prioritization of related issues, yet it has never submitted that timeline to the Tribunal. 28. Consequently, this Court considers that the State has not complied with this obligation and must therefore submit updated and detailed information on the steps it is taking to ensure the Moiwana Community’s property rights in accordance with the Judgment and the Court’s jurisprudence on collective land rights (supra Considering clauses 24 to 26). In particular, the Court requests the State to submit information on: a) the steps it is taking in order to enact the legislation necessary to ensure collective land rights in a way that takes indigenous, maroon, and tribal peoples' cultures, usages, customs, and beliefs into account, including legislation regarding the juridical personality of those peoples; b) the specific measures it is taking in order to delimit, demarcate, and title the lands of the Moiwana Community; and c) the specific actions it is taking in order to obtain 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, including the community of Alfonsdorp. Additionally, the State must indicate to the Court whether it has taken any action that would affect the existence, value, use, or enjoyment of the geographical area where the Moiwana Community traditionally lived until November 1986. Furthermore, the State must inform the 31 Case of Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 211. 32 Cf. “Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Moiwana Village” (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome II, folio 282) and “Final Report of the Commission Land Rights” (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome II, folio 309). These documents were submitted by the State during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8). 33 Cf. “Final Report of the Commission Land Rights” (case file on monitoring compliance, tome II, folios 293-294). This document was submitted by the State during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8).