80 The Court’s Assessment 201. In this chapter, the Court will determine the measures of satisfaction to repair non-pecuniary damages; such measures seek to impact the public sphere.108 These measures have special significance in the instant case, given the extreme gravity of the facts and the collective nature of the damages suffered. a) The State’s obligation to investigate the facts in question, identify, prosecute and punish the responsible parties, as well as recover the remains of the Moiwana community members killed during the 1986 attack 202. The Court held above (supra paragraphs 163 and 164) that Suriname’s gravely deficient investigation into the November 29, 1986 attack upon Moiwana Village, the State’s violent obstruction of justice, and the extended period of time that has transpired without a 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. 203. Thus, more than 18 years later, the impunity of the material and intellectual authors responsible for the attack continues to prevail in Suriname. The Court has defined impunity as the overall lack of investigation, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.109 The State is obliged to combat such a situation by all available legal means, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their next of kin completely defenseless.110 204. Furthermore, as stated previously, all persons, including the family members of victims of serious human rights violations, have the right to the truth. In consequence, the family members of victims and society as a whole must be informed regarding the circumstances of such violations. This right to the truth, once recognized, constitutes an important means of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to the truth creates an expectation that the State must fulfill to the benefit of the victims.111 205. In light of the above, in response to the extrajudicial killings that occurred on November 29, 1986, the State must immediately carry out 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. The results of these processes must be publicly disseminated by the State, so that the Surinamese society may know the truth regarding the facts of the instant case. 108 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 165; Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 82, para. 93; and Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 59, para. 164. 109 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 170; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 148; and Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 175. 110 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 126; Case of Tibi, supra note 98, para. 255; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 228. 111 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 128; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 230; and Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 261.