27 84. Under the suggestive and title Testimony against Oblivion (Testimonio contra el Olvido), the Comité de Iglesias para Ayudas de Emergencia, for example, published in 1999 in Paraguay a documentary book (covering the period 1954-1989) so as to reveal the injustices committed in the name of "an omnipotent State", which left the numerous victims impotent, and so as to contribute to preserve the memory of the sufferings of the victims which made it possible to recover the freedom later. It warns as to what happens when the police, instead of protecting, repress and humiliates those who think differently from the "official line of the State"98. 85. Recent examples to the same effect multiply themselves. The Inter-American Court has given its contribution to this liberation of the human spirit from imposed oblivion and impunity, in particular by fulminating self-amnesty laws in its historical and wide-acclaimed Judgment in the Barrios Altos case (of 14.03.2001) concerning Peru, and by discarding prescription in its substantial Judgment in the Bulacio versus Argentina case (of 18.07.2003). 86. It should not pass unnoticed that in the present case of the Moiwana Community versus Suriname, the human rights organization "Moiwana '86" sought in vain to prevent the enactment of an amnesty act in Suriname. As the Inter-American Court noted, as to the proven facts, in the present Sentence, on 19.08.1992 the President of Suriname officially enacted the "Amnesty Act 1989", granting amnesty to those who had committed certain criminal acts during the period from 01.01.1985 to 20.08.1992, with the exception of crimes against humanity; these latter were defined as "those crimes which according to international law are classified as such"99. 87. In his thoughtful book La mémoire, l'histoire, l'oubli (2000), P. Ricoeur timely warns that "oblivion is not only the enemy of memory and history", but is furthermore "the emblem of the vulnerability of the historical condition as a whole"100. He then directs his criticisms to the legal subterfuges precisely of prescription and amnesty: "(...) La prescription est une institution étonnante, qui s'autorise à grand-peine de l'effet présumé du temps sur des obligations supposées persister dans le temps. À la différence de l'amnistie qui (...) tend à effacer les traces psychiques ou sociales, comme si rien ne s'était passé, la prescription consiste en une interdiction de considérer les conséquences pénales de l'action commise (...). C'est le refus, après un laps d'années défini arbitrairement, de reparcourir le temps en arrière jusqu'à l'acte et ses traces illégales ou irrégulières. Les traces ne sont pas effacées: c'est le chemin qui est interdit (...). Comment le . Cf. Testimonio contra el Olvido - Reseña de la Infamia y el Terror (Paraguay 1954-1989), Asunción, Comité de Iglesias para Ayudas de Emergencia, 1999, pp. 7-37, esp. p. 15. 98 . Paragraph 86(39) and (40). 99 . P. Ricoeur, La mémoire, l'histoire, l'oubli, Paris, Éd. Seuil, 2000, pp. 374-375. 100