41 86(39). On August 19, 1992, the President of Suriname officially promulgated the “Amnesty Act 1989,” which grants amnesty to those who committed certain criminal acts, with the exception of crimes against humanity, during the period from January 1, 1985 until August 20, 1992. Crimes against humanity are defined by the statute as “those crimes which according to international law are classified as such.”53 86(40). Moiwana ’86 sought to prevent the enactment of the “Amnesty Act 1989” by seeking an injunction in the First District Court in Paramaribo, arguing that the Act would violate “the Constitution of the Republic of Suriname and […] the conventions ratified by the Republic of Suriname in respect of human rights.” On August 19, 1992, the First District Court issued a judgment by which it refused to grant the “interim injunction” requested.54 b) Amendment to the statute of limitations for certain crimes 86(41). On November 16, 2004, the President of Suriname officially promulgated an amendment to the Penal Code, which provides that the “right to prosecute does not expire” if the matter in question concerns, inter alia, a “crime against humanity” or a “war crime.”55 Suffering and Fear of the Moiwana Community Members 86(42). The Moiwana community members have suffered emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and economically, owing to the attack on their village, the subsequent forced separation from their traditional lands, as well as their inability both to honor properly their deceased loved ones and to obtain justice for the events of 1986.56 86(43). The ongoing impunity for the 1986 raid on Moiwana Village and the inability of the community to understand the motives for that attack have generated a deep fear in the members that they may be subject to future aggressions, which is a central factor preventing them from returning to live in their traditional lands. Their permanent return to Moiwana Village, then, is contingent upon the State conducting a complete investigation into the events of 1986; according to the community members, only when justice is accomplished in the case will they be able to appease the angry spirits of their deceased family members, purify their land, and return to permanent residence without apprehension of further hostilities.57 53 Cf. “Amnesty Act 1989.” Statutes of the Republic of Suriname No. 68, August 19, 1992 (exhibits to the application, vol. II, exhibit 28, pp. 476 – 483). 54 Cf. Judgment of the First District Court issued on August 19, 1992 (case file on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs, vol. V, pp. 1226 – 1230). 55 Cf. “Act of 16 November 2004” (case file on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs, vol. VI, pp. 1301 – 1306). 56 Cf. testimony of Kenneth M. Bilby delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004; testimony of Antonia Difienjo delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004; testimony of Andre Ajintoena delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004; testimony of Erwin Willemdam delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004; and affidavit of expert witness Thomas Polimé, sworn on August 20, 2004 (case file on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs, vol. III, pp. 713 – 715). 57 Cf. testimony of Kenneth M. Bilby delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004; testimony of Antonia Difienjo delivered before the Inter-American Court on September 9, 2004;