56 d) the judicial remedies theoretically available through the legal system have proven completely illusory in the present case, as the alleged victims have never succeeded in obtaining an adequate investigation of the attack on Moiwana Village, although the attack included multiple crimes requiring an investigation ex officio, including, but not limited to, murder, battery and destruction of property; e) the only reported efforts to carry out an investigation in the instant case, those headed by Inspector Gooding, reached a stage at which a number of members of the armed forces were arrested, only to be liberated by a siege conducted by the military police; f) although this action to release the detained soldiers was an open and notorious breach of the authority of the military police, it was not met with any official sanction. To the contrary, the investigation of the attack on Moiwana Village was suspended following the murder of Inspector Gooding, in circumstances that have themselves never been clarified. In this way, the authorities responsible for carrying out an investigation have either been intimidated or directly prevented from applying due diligence to investigate the attack; g) in addition to a state’s obligation to investigate suspected human rights violations ex officio, Surinamese law establishes the right of a victim to petition as a party for a criminal investigation. The alleged victims, then, had a fundamental civil right to go to the courts, and thereby play an important role in propelling the criminal case forward; however, that right cannot be realized when the investigation process is obstructed; h) family members are entitled to know the facts and circumstances with respect to the fate of their loved ones. They are also entitled to a judicial investigation by a criminal court in order to establish responsibility for human rights violations; i) the amnesty law adopted by the State fosters the impunity prevalent in Suriname after the attack on Moiwana Village. Since the initiatives to investigate never reached the stage of prosecution, the amnesty law was never applied in the instant case. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the law had the effect of indicating to relevant officials that those responsible for violations committed during the relevant time period were not to be held accountable; and j) the amnesty law continues to be interpreted by many as precluding any measures to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for the attack on Moiwana Village; and thereby contributes to the prevailing of impunity, both in the present case and in others of Suriname. Arguments of the representatives 137. The representatives agreed with the Commission that the State violated the aforementioned rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, and argued as follows: