5 The mention made by the Court of Article 1(1) does not resolve this vacuum. In this case, the obligation to guarantee refers to the duty to comply with the contents of Article 8 and of Article 25, but cannot serve as grounds to hold that the State had the obligation to investigate. Due process and remedies can only be demanded to protect another human right or rights; these other rights necessarily arise from another source, which the judgment in this case fails to mention. 4. Based on the considerations and reasoning in the first part of this opinion and the considerations on the case itself that precede this paragraph, I conclude that, in this judgment, the State of Suriname is obliged to investigate the facts of the 1986 Moiwana massacre owing to the existence of its obligation to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity, and that not guaranteeing them constitutes a violation of Articles 4 and 5 which recognize them, read in conjunction with Article 1(1). 5. Thus, I consider that the Court should have declared that Articles 4 and 5 were violated in relation to the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate, because this was part of the obligation to guarantee against the deprivation of life and the adverse effects on personal integrity that were alleged in the case. Cecilia Medina-Quiroga Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary Judge García-Ramírez subscribes to Judge Medina Quiroga’s opinion. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary