63 Convention from the legal obligations set out in that treaty, and particularly not in a case of extrajudicial executions.87 The Tribunal has held that by carrying out or tolerating actions leading to extrajudicial killings, by not investigating such actions adequately, and by not punishing those responsible, the State breaches its duty to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention and prevents the society as a from learning the truth regarding those facts.88 154. For their part, the alleged victims and the organizations acting on their behalf, Moiwana ’86 and Association Moiwana, have repeatedly sought an official investigation into the attack on Moiwana Village. For example, according to the proven facts, on May 24, 1993, Moiwana ’86 reported the discovery of the mass grave site to the Attorney General and urged an investigation of the attack and the prosecution of those responsible (supra paragraph 86(31)). On August 23, 1993, Moiwana ’86 directed another letter to the Attorney General that requested information on the state of the criminal investigation (supra paragraph 86(34)). 155. Moreover, as recounted in the proven facts (supra paragraph 86(35)), following the National Assembly’s motion, Moiwana ’86 filed two formal requests in 1996 with the Attorney General for a proper investigation into the attack. Having received no response, Moiwana ’86 contacted the President of the Court of Justice. On August 21, 1996, the President of the Court of Justice instructed the Attorney General to submit to that Court, pursuant to Article 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a report on the matter, to be accompanied by any available police files. However, the Office of the Attorney General never substantively responded to these requests filed by the President of the Court of Justice and Moiwana ’86. 156. Suriname’s manifest inactivity in the face of this case’s extremely serious facts – despite pressures to investigate the 1986 attack from the alleged victims as well as the State’s own legislative branch – shows a patent disregard for the principle of due diligence. Indeed, as recently as the public hearing held before this Court on September 9, 2004, not even Suriname’s Attorney General himself could describe with any degree of specificity the current state of the Moiwana investigation. The Tribunal, then, shares the assessment of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which, in its 2004 Concluding Observations on the human rights situation in Suriname, stated: investigations into […] the 1986 Moiwana massacre remain pending and have not yet produced concrete results. [The information supplied that the case is] still being investigated is disturbing, especially given the lapse of time since [its] occurrence. The Committee further considers that this situation reflects a lack of effective remedies available to victims of human rights violations […].89 * * * 87 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 1, para. 118; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 207. 88 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 78, para. 134; Case of Trujillo-Oroza. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 99 – 101 and 109; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, paras. 74 – 77. 89 2004. U.N. Human Rights Committee. Concluding Observations: Suriname. CCPR/CO/80/SUR. May 4,