1. The Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or the "Inter-American Court") of January 21, 1994.
2. The note from the Aloeboetoe et al. Foundation (Stichting Beheer Fondsen Aloeboetoe e. a. hereinafter "the Foundation") of April 24, 1995, to which it attached a press release concerning the instant Case.
3. The report from the Government of Suriname, received on July 7, 1995, stating that "with reference to the GANGARAM PANDAY case, the Government of the Republic of Suriname shall continue its efforts to receive further information, after which the Court will be duly notified."
4. The communications from the President of the Court of September 14 and November 3, 1995, January 22, May 30 and October 7, 1996, addressed to the parties, in which the Court requested up-to-date information on the fulfillment of the judgment of January 21, 1994, on the part of the Government of Suriname.
5. The communication of June 21, 1996, from the Commission in which it reported that "according to the information gathered, the widow of the victim and mother of his children has not been paid the US$ 10,000 compensation the Court directed be distributed to her and to the children."
1. That operative paragraph 5 of the Judgment of January 21, 1994 provides that the Court "shall supervise the payment of the compensation ordered and shall only close the file thereafter."
2. That the press release presented by the Foundation indicates that "the relatives of Mr. Ashok Gangaram Panday who, according to an official report, committed suicide in 1988 while under arrest by the Military Police here, have refused the US$ 10,000 in compensation money from the Surinamese Government."
3. That the aforementioned communications of September 14 and November 3, 1995 and January 22, May 30 and October 7, 1996 to the parties from the President of the Court sought "information as to whether the Government ha[d] paid the US$ 10,000 to the Mr. Gangaram Panday's next of kin or whether this amount had been legally deposited in their name" but no clear reply has been received to date.
4. That according to information received from the parties, the Government of Suriname has not complied with operative paragraph 4 of the Court's judgment of January 21, 1994.
5. That the jurisprudence of the Court has established that when a State has been unable to fulfill the pecuniary aspects of its judgments on reparations, it order a system of deposits on behalf of the beneficiaries for a specific period; should the beneficiaries fail to claim the indemnity, the funds shall be returned to the State and the Judgment shall be considered to have been fulfilled (El Amparo Case, Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 47; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 66; and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 63).
6. That in the instant case, and in accordance with the power of the Court to supervise compliance with the ruling, the Government must be asked to use the aforementioned proceeding.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure,
1. To urge the Government of Suriname to comply with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 21, 1994, making every effort to locate the beneficiaries of the indemnity and, in the event that payment cannot be made, to deposit the amount in a trust fund in a bank. If after ten years from the creation of said trust fund, these funds have not been claimed, the amount shall be returned to the State and the Judgment shall be deemed to have been fulfilled.
2. To urge the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to endeavor to locate the next of kin of Mr. Ashok Gangaram Panday so that the Government can comply with the Judgment of January 21, 1994.
3. To request that the parties provide this Court, within six months of notification of this Order, with up-to-date information on compliance with this judgment.