11 c) Duty to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana Community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled (Operative Paragraph three of the Judgment and Operative Paragraph one of the Judgment on Interpretation) 19. The State reported during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8) that in the years 2007 to 2009, it carried out workshops with the participation of civil society and indigenous and maroon communities in order to raise national awareness on land rights. It also carried out a national conference that resulted in a tentative timeline for compliance with this obligation and the prioritization of related issues. The State indicated, furthermore, that it is working to include collective land rights in the Constitution of Suriname. It also affirmed that the National Commission on Land Rights (hereinafter “the National Commission), whose mandate ended in December 2007, issued a “Final Report” that was presented to the government in February 2008 for comments; however, no comments have been received. Though the National Commission faced several obstacles that limited its access to indigenous and maroon communities for consultations, including a lack of funding, 23 the Report is to be used in the drafting of legislation intended to remedy existing regulations that offer insufficient guarantees to the Moiwana Community with respect to concessions in their territory. In addition, the National Commission was able to map the Moiwana territory with the Community’s cooperation. As a result of its work, the State asked the Amazon Conservation Team (hereinafter, “the ACT”), a private, nongovernmental organization, to conduct a study on that territory. According to the State, the ACT mapped Moiwana territories, collected data essential for demarcation, and in May 2007 issued a draft report entitled “Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Moiwana Village” as part of the State’s “Support for the Sustainable Development of the Interior” (hereinafter, “SSDI”) project, which is “in a final phase.” This report was to be discussed with the victims in February 2010 and presented to the government in March 2010. The State affirmed that it is regularly consulting and working in close cooperation with target groups in order to demarcate their lands. However, it also indicated that “this strategy is not specifically intended for the territory of the Moiwana [V]illage[,] but [for] the whole interior of Suriname,” and stated that a schedule for implementation “will be sen[t] to the Court after consultation with stakeholders.” Finally, in response to statements made by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission (infra Considering clauses 20 and 23), the State clarified that it had requested assistance from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter, “the Special Rapporteur”) for the implementation of another judgment; nevertheless, international experts, including the Special Rapporteur, “will be involved in the solution of the lands rights issue.” 20. The representatives observed little progress in the State’s compliance with this order. They noted, first of all, that while in 2008 the State had asked the UN Special Rapporteur for support in the drafting of a law that would regularize tribal peoples' property rights, the Special Rapporteur’s 2009 Report indicated that the State had not followed up on that request. They also indicated that the State has 23 According to the State, other obstacles included flooding in the hinterlands that limited access to the indigenous and maroon communities, as well as the fact that that these communities do not have a “uniform perspective” on land rights and that some of their members that have moved to the city have “no interest in collective rights.”