60 of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction.75 143. In similar cases, this Court has established that “in order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings.”76 Adhering to precedent, then, the Tribunal will consider the entirety of the relevant national proceedings in the instant case, in order to make an informed determination as to whether the Convention’s abovementioned provisions regarding judicial protection and due process have been violated.77 The Court’s assessment will involve a discussion of the following elements: a) the appropriate legal remedy under the circumstances of the present case; b) the effectiveness of said remedy; and c) the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. a) The appropriate legal remedy 144. Throughout the proceedings before this Court, the State has maintained that the Moiwana community members should have instituted civil actions in national courts to obtain redress for the various human rights violations they claim to have suffered. Suriname has stated that “the most effective manner to obtain damages and repair is the civil process,” and “it is a clear-cut case that petitioners should have filed a civil suit to receive compensation for material and [moral] damages.” In this regard, Suriname has offered evidence that actions against the State for compensation have proven to be successful, yet has noted that there is no record that community members have filed such civil suits in national courts (supra paragraph 86(38)). 145. The Court observes that, eventually, civil actions may serve as a means of reparations for the human rights violations suffered by Moiwana community members at the hands of State agents and collaborators. However, it has been proven (supra paragraph 86(15)), as well as expressly recognized by Suriname, that State actors were involved in the November 29, 1986 attack that killed at least 39 defenseless Moiwana Village residents – including infants, women and the elderly – and wounded many others. Thus, the facts portray a disturbing scenario of multiple extrajudicial executions; with respect to such a situation, the Tribunal’s case law is unmistakable: the State has an ex officio duty to initiate, without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation.78 146. Upon its accession to the American Convention in 1987, then, the first legal remedy Suriname was obligated to provide was a swift and exhaustive judicial investigation into the events of November 29, 1986. The Court has held that such an investigation must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere 75 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 76; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para 194; and Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 60. 76 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 57; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 133; and Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para 182. 77 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 58. 78 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 127 and 132.