21 an investigation to the President of the Court of Justice, who in turn sent the petition to the Attorney General; nevertheless, no further action was taken. Moiwana ’86 requested the government to reject the amnesty law that was adopted in 1992, because they considered it a means to legalize impunity. The witness also believes that the law itself negatively affected the willingness of the police to investigate the human rights violations occurring during the period from 1985 to 1992-93, which are the years covered by that legislation. Many of those collaborating with Moiwana ’86 received threats and had to leave the country. The witness himself was arrested four times; furthermore, there was an attempt made on his life, which obligated him to leave Suriname. To his knowledge, the assassination attempt was never investigated by the authorities. Efforts to investigate the Moiwana case have entailed risks because “there are not that many people in the system who would like to have this thing […] looked into.” As a result, it was “very difficult to guarantee anyone safety, to guarantee protection from people you can’t control.” Of all the human rights cases that Moiwana ’86 handled during the time that the witness worked there, he cannot recall a single one that reached the stage of prosecution and punishment – although the cases taken before the Inter-American Court, Aloeboetoe and Gangaram Panday, resulted in compensation for the victims. The witness has worked with the survivors and next of kin of the attack, including the refugees in French Guiana, since 1987. The other survivors are located in Suriname, in the towns of Paramaribo and Moengo. Since that time, he and others have visited these individuals to do as much as possible to assist them and to find them a temporary place to stay. Moiwana ’86 has included representatives of the survivors in its activities: “at least three members of that group were permanently participating in our activities with regard to Moiwana.” Furthermore, when the witness and Moiwana ’86 submitted complaints and requests to the judicial authorities for investigation, it was made clear that they did so on behalf of the survivors. These complaints and requests have sought criminal investigation, not a civil action for compensation. This is because the only possibility to investigate effectively the violations at Moiwana was to appeal to law enforcement authorities. As a human rights organization, Moiwana ’86 tried to initiate the criminal investigation by communicating with the appropriate state institutions, “to help the State with its obligations to defend rights.” Thus, the Moiwana survivors have not initiated civil proceedings yet; they have only sought a criminal investigation, after which civil actions may be filed. Based on his experience, the witness believes that there has been “insufficient support of the idea, the concept, that the Maroons deserve the same type of legal protection in the country.” A few days before the hearing, the representatives of the Moiwana survivors confirmed to the witness that they wish to return to their village.