17 decisions on this case in Suriname," he answered vaguely that, "[I] heard nothing further on the matter." d. That in the note signed by the Minister of Justice and Police of Suriname which was sent to the Commission on May 2, 1989, in response to the request made by the latter in its note of February 6, 1989, it is stated that: [T]he Prosecutor General ordered an autopsy to be carried out; the Prosecutor General [. . .] investigated the circumstances and reasons for the detention; [t]hat in addition to the foregoing, the Department of Technical and Criminal Investigations and the Department of Identifications drew up a report; [and] [t]hat the Attorney General had considered it important to look into the possibility that the Military Police Officer [. . .] might be guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty or illegal detention. 66. The Commission's assertion, contained in the preambular paragraphs of its report on the instant case, that the Government, "enacted an amnesty Decree freeing all the guilty parties of their criminal responsibility," is not supported in the record by anything other than the statement of the complainant. 67. In view of the above, this Court concludes that there is no proof of the violation of Articles 2 and 25 of the Convention charged in the instant case. And it so finds. X 68. Since the Court has concluded, by inference, that Asok Gangaram Panday was illegally detained by members of the Military Police of Suriname, this violation of the Convention must be ascribed to that State. 69. Consequently, the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention are here applicable. The Court notes that in the instant case, since the victim is deceased, it is impossible to ensure him the enjoyment of his right or to make full reparation for the consequences of the measure that constituted the breach thereof. Hence, in accordance with the provision cited, the payment of fair compensation is in order. 70. Since Suriname's responsibility has been inferred, the Court decides to set a nominal amount as compensation, one half to be paid to the widow and the other half to the victim's children, if any. If there are no children, their portion shall be added to the widow's half. 71. Also based on the fact that Suriname's responsibility has been inferred, the Court considers that it must dismiss the request for an award of costs. XI Now, therefore, THE COURT unanimously, 1. Declares that Suriname has violated its obligations to respect and to ensure the right to personal liberty set forth in Article 7(2) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Asok Gangaram Panday.