20 organized, trained and armed by state military personnel. It was a problematic period for eastern Suriname in general; serious violations took place in that area, which was a major battleground during the internal armed conflict, and Moiwana ’86 reported those violations to the government. At one point, the Ministry of Defense publicly stated that the attack at Moiwana was a military action. Moiwana ’86 was “very systematic” in requesting that the State investigate the attack of November 29, 1986. Toward this end, they collected information, put it into writing and submitted it to government authorities on a continual basis. Moiwana ’86 as an organization has asked police and judicial authorities every year at least once to investigate the attack. Moiwana ’86 also tried to be “as supportive as possible” concerning Inspector Gooding’s inquiries; Gooding was in charge of the State’s official criminal investigation. The witness stated that Gooding “found major members of the team of perpetrators” and remarked that his accomplishments showed that he was “a very brave man.” As a result of this initial investigation, Orlando Swedo was detained by the police; yet his release was demanded and obtained by a fully-armed military unit. The military leader Desire Bouterse ordered that release; this was known because Bouterse conducted a press conference once Swedo was freed. During that meeting with the press, Gooding was warned not to cooperate with Moiwana ’86. Not long after, Gooding visited the military barracks at Fort Zeelandia. Upon leaving, his car was stopped; he was then taken out and shot to death. After Gooding’s death, the police did not continue their investigation of the Moiwana attack. On the other hand, those responsible for Gooding’s murder were never prosecuted and the circumstances were never clarified. Furthermore, many of the investigators that worked with Gooding had to leave the country because they faced “a life-threatening situation.” “Even the highest authorities were not able to further investigate” his death. In 1993, the witness received information about the discovery of human remains near the village of Moiwana; he was told that the bodies were from the massacre. He informed the authorities, especially the Attorney General, who was quick in establishing a committee to look into the matter. After two sessions – the witness was present during both – remains were uncovered, which were taken to Paramaribo for further investigation. The witness learned from the press that the remains of six to nine individuals, including children, were found. However, the authorities never identified the remains, and the witness never received information about further steps to investigate the situation. Moreover, there was a “reactionary statement” in the press from a government official, alluding to an amnesty law enacted in 1992, which diminished the hope that the investigation of the Moiwana case could continue. In 1995, the Surinamese Parliament called on the Executive to investigate various human rights violations. However, the witness was unaware of any subsequent investigation into the Moiwana attack by the legal authorities. In 1996, Moiwana ’86 submitted a formal request to the Attorney General under the Surinamese Code of Criminal Procedure for an investigation into the massacre. After receiving no response, they presented a formal request for