-4- 5. The letter dated July 20, 2006, in which (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) requested the State to records of the public ceremony celebrated by state presumably recognized its international responsibility victims. the Secretariat of the Court submit any audio and/or video authorities in which the State and issued an apology to the 6. The brief dated August 17, 2006, in which the representatives of the victims and their family members (hereinafter “the Representatives”) submitted their comments on the first report of the State (supra Having Seen paragraph 4) and their specific requests. Accordingly, the Representatives stated that: a) Suriname has made a number of good faith efforts to implement certain aspects of the Judgment; b) they recognize the public apology was held on July 15, 2006, the design of the monument is progressing, and most of the victims have received compensation; c) despite those efforts, some deficiencies are taking place and the Representatives do not feel fully consulted in some of the issues at stake. Furthermore, Suriname has misconstrued the Court’s order with regard to the payment to Association Moiwana; d) Suriname has failed to comply with the order made by the Court to carry out an effective, swift investigation and judicial process, and to fulfill its obligation to investigate and punish the responsible parties. Moreover, other than mentioning the establishment of a “Coordination Team”, “in charge of preparing the investigation and judicial process of several specific punishable acts perpetrated in 1986 in Moiwana”, the State has not made further statements concerning this Court’s above-mentioned order. Suriname’s failure to provide any meaningful information on this matter in its report to the Court is highly disturbing given the centrality of the denial of justice to most of the violations found by the Court in its Judgment; e) statements made by the Attorney General on several occasions appear to suggest that the State will be unable to carry out an investigation and subsequent judicial process without a roster of eye-witnesses and seem to put the onus for moving the process forward on the victims rather than acknowledging that this is primarily the responsibility of the State. They also ignore that there is ample documentary and other evidence, which could conform the basis of a judicial process. f) additionally, the option of establishing a mechanism by which the victims’ testimony can be taken with guarantees for their safety has failed and is no longer under discussion. Investigation and prosecution of those responsible for obstructing the criminal investigation can be made without the testimony of the victims themselves, however the State is not addressing this issue at all; g) without completing an investigation of the massacre to clarify the facts, Suriname cannot “remove all obstacles[…] that perpetuate impunity”. Because the 1992 Amnesty Law will preclude all prosecutions except in the case of crimes against humanity and war crimes, the applicability of this Law can only be determined once the facts of the case and the bases for suspect liability have been ascertained; h) Suriname’s ongoing failure to comply with its obligation to investigate the massacre, prosecute and punish those responsible, and compensate the victims continues to be the major source of fear for the victims. Indeed, continuing delays in the investigation cause additional harm to the victim’s moral and