58 f) a criminal investigation into the events of November 29, 1986 resumed in August 2002 and is now being carried out in accordance with the national statutory provisions, for the purpose of prosecuting and punishing any guilty parties; g) the political situation in Suriname is now appropriate for a structured approach toward the criminal investigation of the Moiwana case, as well as of other events occurring during the 1980s and early 1990s. A team has been established, consisting of investigating officers and headed by a chief public prosecutor; h) the victims and their families had and still have the opportunity to invoke and exercise their right to a simple, prompt and effective judicial recourse for the protection of their rights; i) the most effective manner to obtain damages and remedy is the civil process. The Surinamese Code of Civil Procedure offers everyone the opportunity to commence a civil action on the basis of one or more legal provisions; although such an action could have been instituted against the State, this has not been done in the instant case; j) the Legal Aid Office of the Ministry of Justice and Police provides legal assistance to economically-disadvantaged individuals; k) the original petitioner, Moiwana ’86, is aware of the abovementioned possibility to obtain one’s right to justice, since that organization instituted, at the national level, an action against the State to declare the “Amnesty Act 1989” non-binding; l) through the adoption of the “Amnesty Act 1989,” no rights of individuals were violated. “If the State waives prosecution of certain persons […] or postpones prosecution until an appropriate time, then it would have only postponed or waived the use of a certain means to enforce or protect such rights”; m) A state has both the right and the authority “to postpone or to waive the use of a certain means of law enforcement,” when the use of such means would seriously compromise the protection of other important interests that form part of that government’s responsibilities, such as bringing about peace and order; n) in drafting the “Amnesty Act 1989” “the legislator did not envisage impunity of possible perpetrators of events in Moiwana Village”; o) the “Amnesty Act 1989” is not contrary to international law, given the fact that a number of States have granted a similar amnesty, “with the cooperation of the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity”; p) the “Amnesty Act 1989” does not apply to crimes against humanity. Not every infringement on the rights granted to man is included under the title of crimes against humanity; it only includes crimes that are committed within the framework of a systematic violation of human rights with the object