51 117. In the instant case, as discussed above, many Moiwana community members have remained in French Guiana, owing to fears for their safety and the failure of the State’s criminal investigation. Nevertheless, in 1993 a minority of the community members returned to Suriname and were placed in a temporary reception center in Moengo – yet, many remain in the reception center to this day, as they haven’t been provided with a suitable alternative. Ms. Difienjo expressed indignation at the State’s approach to the refugees in general; she testified that, although Moiwana community members have written the State letters, government officials have very rarely visited them in French Guiana or attended to their needs: “they consider us like dogs: you can kill them, you don’t have to pay that much attention to them.” As established previously (supra paragraph 86(18)), since their flight from Moiwana Village in 1986, both the refugees in French Guiana and those who never left Suriname have typically faced impoverished conditions and lack access to many basic services. 118. In sum, only when justice is obtained for the events of November 29, 1986 may the Moiwana community members: 1) appease the angry spirits of their deceased family members and purify their traditional land; and 2) no longer fear that further hostilities will be directed toward their community. Those two elements, in turn, are indispensable for their permanent return to Moiwana Village, which many – if not all – of the community members wish to accomplish (supra paragraph 86(43)). 119. The Court observes that Suriname has disputed that the Moiwana survivors suffer restrictions upon their travels or residence; in that regard, the State asserts that they may indeed move freely throughout the country. Regardless of whether a legal disposition actually exists in Suriname that establishes such a right – upon which the Tribunal deems it unnecessary to rule – in this case the Moiwana survivors’ freedom of movement and residence is circumscribed by a very precise, de facto restriction, originating from their well-founded fears described above, which excludes them only from their ancestral territory. 120. Thus, the State has failed to both establish conditions, as well as provide the means, that would allow the Moiwana community members to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their traditional lands, in relation to which they have a special dependency and attachment – as there is objectively no guarantee that their human rights, particularly their rights to life and to personal integrity, will be secure. By not providing such elements – including, foremost, an effective criminal investigation to end the reigning impunity for the 1986 attack – Suriname has failed to ensure the rights of the Moiwana survivors to move freely within the State and to choose their place of residence. Furthermore, the State has effectively deprived those community members still exiled in French Guiana of their rights to enter their country and to remain there. 121. For the foregoing reasons, the Court declares that Suriname violated Article 22 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, to the detriment of the Moiwana community members.