## Facts

- On November 29, 1986, during Suriname’s internal conflict, state security forces attacked the N’djuka Maroon village of Moiwana, killing dozens of residents and destroying the settlement.
- Survivors fled, and many remained displaced for years because of fear and the absence of effective state action to address the attack and its aftermath.
- Suriname did not complete an effective investigation or prosecution of those responsible, and the community lacked access to an effective remedy.
- The community also suffered continuing harm connected to the loss of access to its traditional territory and the inability to carry out cultural and burial practices, including the return of victims’ remains.
- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its main judgment in 2005 (Series C No. 124), finding Suriname responsible for multiple violations and ordering reparations, including measures tied to investigation, return of remains, compensation, and protection of the community’s traditional land rights and safe return.
- After the 2005 judgment, Suriname filed a Request for Interpretation under Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
- The request asked the Court to clarify the meaning and scope of aspects of the 2005 judgment’s reparations and related operative paragraphs.
- On February 8, 2006, the Court issued this Interpretation of Judgment (Series C No. 145), addressing the request and confirming that compliance would remain under the Court’s supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether Suriname’s request raised genuine ambiguities in the 2005 judgment suitable for interpretation under Article 67, or instead sought to reopen the merits or change the reparations ordered.
2. How to construe and apply specific reparation orders from the 2005 judgment (including measures connected to investigation, return of remains, compensation/collective measures, and steps related to the community’s traditional territory and return).
3. Whether, and to what extent, the Court’s compliance-monitoring authority continued after issuing clarifications through an interpretation judgment.

## Decision

- The Court held that an Article 67 interpretation judgment is limited to clarifying the meaning of the prior judgment when there is ambiguity; it cannot be used to revise, appeal, or relitigate what was decided in 2005.
- The Court provided clarifications on the points it considered capable of interpretation, explaining how certain reparation orders in the 2005 judgment were to be understood for purposes of implementation.
- The Court rejected or declined to entertain parts of the request to the extent they sought to alter the content of the 2005 judgment, substitute new conditions, or revisit factual or legal determinations already made.
- The Court confirmed that the findings of responsibility and the reparations ordered in the 2005 judgment remained in force as issued, subject only to the clarifications provided.
- The Court confirmed it would continue supervising compliance with the 2005 judgment, as clarified, through its established monitoring process.

## Legal Principles

- Article 67 permits interpretation only to clarify the meaning, scope, or method of compliance with a judgment when necessary; it is not a procedure to modify the ruling or to raise new disputes over the merits.
- Interpretation operates within the framework of the original judgment: clarifications guide implementation but do not replace the original findings of violation and ordered reparations.
- States must comply with Inter-American Court judgments in good faith, including monetary and non-monetary measures such as investigation, measures of satisfaction, and steps needed to remove barriers that keep victims from exercising their rights.
- In cases involving Maroon or other tribal communities, Convention property protection (Article 21) extends to communal relationships to traditional territory based on customary use and occupation, not only formal title; ordered measures may require legal recognition and effective protection.
- Where displacement and fear are linked to impunity and the absence of protective measures, compliance with reparations may require concrete steps to make return possible in practice, not only in law.
- The Court retains authority to supervise compliance with its judgments and may issue further orders assessing implementation after an interpretation judgment.

## Conclusion

In this 2006 interpretation judgment (Series C No. 145), the Inter-American Court clarified limited aspects of the reparations and operative provisions from its 2005 Moiwana merits judgment after Suriname sought guidance under Article 67, while refusing any attempt to reopen or change what had already been decided and confirming continued judicial supervision of compliance.


Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 145 (2006)