57 a) the evidence before the Court demonstrates that all of the alleged victims actively and repeatedly sought legal recourse in Suriname, but their attempts to obtain justice were ignored, rebuffed, and obstructed, and produced no result; b) as a result of Suriname’s failure to provide effective judicial protection and guarantees, as well as the State’s affirmative obstruction of justice, the alleged victims have been denied not only their right to an effective investigation designed to clarify the facts and assign responsibility, but also their right to seek reparation for the consequences of the violations perpetrated against them; c) Suriname has affirmatively obstructed justice in this case, both through the actions of military officials in 1989 and through invocation of the “Amnesty Act 1989” in relation to the initial investigation of human remains in 1993; d) Suriname bears an “aggravated international responsibility” for its obstruction of justice in this case and its continuing tolerance of that obstruction. Furthermore, the denial of justice in this case must also be viewed in the light of the “extreme gravity” of the underlying violations; in this regard, there is an affirmative obligation on the State to prosecute in cases of crimes against humanity. Arguments of the State 138. Regarding the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the State argued that: a) if the State can prove in the instant case that it offered adequate judicial protection after its accession to the Convention, then there would be no violation of Article 25, assuming that the Court accepts the argument of a “continuous violation”; b) the State has commenced a criminal investigation that is still ongoing, and has no intention to let any offense committed go unpunished; c) there is no unwillingness or inability of the State to investigate, prosecute and punish those who committed the alleged human rights violations against the residents of Moiwana Village. Suriname has not refused in the past or in the present to provide justice for the alleged attack, nor did it obstruct justice in this case; and d) although the alleged victims have urged the State to launch an independent criminal investigation, they have failed to “report an offence”; on the other hand, they have not commenced civil proceedings before the authorities; e) in 1989 a criminal investigation was started, without having been initiated by the victims or the petitioners; however, at that moment “democracy was still not stable,” and, as a result, the climate was not suitable to carry out a sufficient investigation;