64 157. The Court further observes that there is abundant evidence in the record that attests to the involvement of Suriname’s military regime in the overt obstruction of justice in the instant case. Army Commander Desire Bouterse’s forcible release of Orlando Swedo and his statement forbidding the further investigation of military operations by the civilian police serve as irrefutable examples. 158. The proven facts (supra paragraphs 86(28), 86(29) and 86(37)) also demonstrate that essential actors in the search for justice in the present case suffered serious violence and harassment: a) on August 4, 1990, Inspector Herman Gooding, following his meeting with the Deputy Commander of the military police, was murdered; b) some police investigators that collaborated with Inspector Gooding faced life-threatening circumstances and, consequently, fled Suriname; c) Stanley Rensch, founder of Moiwana ’86, survived an assassination attempt and was arbitrarily arrested four times; eventually, he also sought refuge abroad; and d) those who collaborated with Moiwana ’86 to obtain justice for the 1986 attack and related human rights abuses were often threatened and harassed; as a result, some found it necessary to leave Suriname for their own safety (infra paragraph 207). 159. This Court considers that the purpose of such violence and threats was to deter the aforementioned individuals from their respective roles in the investigation and clarification of the facts surrounding the 1986 attack on Moiwana Village. In this regard, the Tribunal notes with dismay that, after nearly 15 years, the murder of Inspector Gooding still has not been conclusively investigated. In order to guarantee due process and judicial protection in a renewed official investigation into the 1986 attack and related human rights violations, the State must facilitate all of the necessary means to protect investigators, witnesses, judges, prosecutors and the Moiwana community members.90 c) The reasonableness of the length of proceedings 160. Since Suriname recognized the competence of the Court on November 12, 1987, almost 18 years have passed and the State has not conducted a serious and effective investigation capable of leading to the conviction of those responsible for the attack on Moiwana Village (supra paragraph 86.33). The Tribunal considers that such a prolonged delay constitutes per se a violation of judicial guarantees, which only exceptionally could be justified by the State. The Court will nevertheless assess whether the delay resulted directly from the case’s complexity or from the conduct of the parties.91 161. With respect to the conduct of the parties, the proven facts (supra paragraphs 86(34) and 86(35)) indicate that the alleged victims and their representatives have frequently urged a criminal investigation into the attack on Moiwana Village, and on occasions have directly facilitated the State’s efforts, such as in 1993 when Moiwana ’86 reported the discovery of the mass grave site to the Office of the Attorney General. 90 91 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 199. Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 69; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 65, para. 142; and Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 191.