65 162. Regarding the case’s complexity, the Court recognizes that the investigation into the events of November 29, 1986 is a difficult matter, as the attack implicated the past actions of a powerful military regime, involved a great number of possible victims – who are now either dead or displaced – and took place in a remote area of the country, among other factors. Nevertheless, it is recalled that, in Inspector Gooding’s 1989 investigation, statements of witnesses were taken and arrests of suspects were carried out (supra paragraph 86(25)). Had the investigation not been abandoned shortly thereafter – owing to the obstructive actions of the military (supra paragraph 86(27)) and the subsequent lack of resolve displayed by Attorney General’s Office (supra paragraphs 86(31) – 86(33) and 86(35)) – it may have promptly resulted in the identification and the subsequent punishment of the attack’s perpetrators. Thus, the Court does not find the extended delay to be justified; accordingly, the length of said proceedings must be judged unreasonable. * * * 163. In consideration of the many facets analyzed above, the Court holds that Suriname’s seriously deficient investigation into the 1986 attack upon Moiwana Village, its violent obstruction of justice, and the extended period of time that has transpired without the clarification of the facts and the punishment of the responsible parties have defied the standards for access to justice and due process established in the American Convention. 164. As a result, the Tribunal declares that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, to the detriment of the Moiwana community members. * * * 165. The Court takes notice that, on August 19, 1992, the President of Suriname officially promulgated the “Amnesty Act 1989,” which grants amnesty to those who have committed certain criminal acts, with the exception of crimes against humanity, during a period from January of 1985 until August of 1992 (supra paragraph 86(39)). The statute vaguely defines crimes against humanity as “those crimes which according to international law are classified as such.” Naturally, then, during the proceedings before the Tribunal there has been much debate as to whether the elements of the 1986 attack reach the threshold of crimes against humanity. 166. In this regard, the Court finds it necessary to reiterate its holding above: in response to the extrajudicial killings that occurred on November 29, 1986, the foremost remedy to be provided by the State is an effective, swift investigation and judicial process, leading to the clarification of the facts, punishment of the responsible parties, and appropriate compensation of the victims. 167. As the Tribunal has asserted on repeated occasions,92 no domestic law or regulation – including amnesty laws and statutes of limitation – may impede the State’s compliance with the Court’s orders to investigate and punish perpetrators of 92 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 151; Case of Bulacio, supra note 79, paras. 117 and 142; and Case of the Five Pensioners. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 164.