81 206. Moreover, as the Court asserted in a preceding chapter, no domestic law or regulation – including amnesty laws and statutes of limitation – may impede the State’s compliance with the Court’s orders to investigate and punish perpetrators of human rights violations. In particular, amnesty laws, statutes of limitation and related provisions that hinder the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations – such as those of the present case, summary, extra-legal or arbitrary executions – are inadmissible, as said violations contravene non-derogable rights recognized in international human rights law.112 207. In fulfillment of its obligation to investigate and punish the responsible parties in the instant case, Suriname must: a) remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that perpetuate impunity; b) use all means at its disposal to expedite the investigation and judicial process; c) sanction, according to the appropriate domestic laws, any public officials, as well as private individuals, who are found responsible for having obstructed the criminal investigation into the attack on Moiwana Village; and d) provide adequate safety guarantees to the victims, other witnesses, judicial officers, prosecutors, and other relevant law enforcement officials. 208. Finally, Suriname must employ all technical and scientific means possible – taking into account the relevant standards in the field, such as those set out in the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions – to recover promptly the remains of the Moiwana community members killed during the 1986 attack. If such remains are found by the State, it shall deliver them as soon as possible thereafter to the surviving community members so that the deceased may be honored according to the rituals of N’djuka culture. Moreover, the State shall conclude, within a reasonable timeframe, the analysis of the human remains found at the grave site in 1993 (supra paragraph 86(31)), and communicate the results of said analysis to the representatives of the victims. b) Collective title to traditional territories 209. In light of its conclusions in the chapter concerning Article 21 of the American Convention (supra paragraph 135), the Court holds that the State shall adopt such legislative, administrative and other measures as are necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled, and provide for their use and enjoyment of those territories. These measures shall include the creation of an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of said traditional territories. 210. The State shall take these measures with the participation and informed consent of the victims as expressed through their representatives, the members of the other Cottica N’djuka villages and the neighboring indigenous communities, including the community of Alfonsdorp. 211. Until the Moiwana community members’ right to property with respect to their traditional territories is secured, Suriname shall refrain from actions – either of State agents or third parties acting with State acquiescence or tolerance – that would 112 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 172; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 148; and Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 175.