50 114. Moreover, the Moiwana survivors have conveyed deep concern that they could once more suffer aggressions as a community if they take up residence again in their homeland, which is located in an area that was targeted during several army operations over the course of the internal conflict (supra paragraph 86(43)). Mr. Ajintoena stated as follows: the religious cleansing, the purification of the land, that is one aspect of it; but secondly, we don’t know who the perpetrators are. There has been no investigation, so the guarantee should also be given that upon return we will not be confronted with the same type of problems that occurred in 1986. The community members’ fear of future persecution is well illustrated by the case of those survivors, such as Mr. Ajintoena, who have remained exiled in French Guiana. In 1991, arrangements were made – through the assistance of the UNHCR – for the thousands of Surinamese refugees, the great majority of them Maroons, to participate in national elections (supra paragraph 86(21)). Nevertheless, few Maroons dared to cross the Maroni River to vote on Surinamese soil. 115. Also in 1991, the Surinamese refugees presented their conditions for repatriation to a commission comprised of representatives from the UNHCR and the governments of Suriname and French Guiana (supra paragraph 86(22)). Those requirements, which were never acted upon by said commission, demanded that Suriname ensure their safety and freedom, as well as that those responsible for having killed civilians during the internal conflict would be investigated and prosecuted. The Court considers it particularly noteworthy, furthermore, that when the official refugee camps in French Guiana were closed in 1992, the French government allowed a certain population to remain. The majority of the members of that group were Moiwana community members, who refused to return to Suriname without guarantees for their safety (supra paragraph 86(23)). The French government recognized the particular dangers those individuals faced by granting them renewable permits to reside in French Guiana; in 1997, they were provided with five or ten-year residency permits. 116. In a relevant case before the UN Human Rights Committee, a Colombian civil rights attorney was forced into exile in the United Kingdom after receiving numerous death threats and suffering an attempt against his life.68 At the time of the Committee’s decision, ten years had passed after the assassination attempt, and the outcome of the criminal investigation in Colombia was still not known. With regard to the victim’s claims that his right to freedom of movement and residence had been violated, the Committee held the following: considering the Committee’s view that the right to security of person (art. 9, para. 1) was violated and that there were no effective domestic remedies allowing the author to return from involuntary exile in safety, the Committee concludes that the State party has not ensured to the author his right to remain in, return to and reside in his own country. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 12 of the Covenant were therefore violated.69 68 U.N. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 859/1999: Colombia. April 15, 2002. 69 U.N. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 859/1999: Colombia. April 15, 2002, para. 7.4.