6 19. The Commission argues that the Saramakas also suffered direct moral damages and should be compensated. According to the Commission, In the traditional Maroon society, a person is not only a member of his own family group, but also a member of the village community and of the tribal group. In this case, the damages suffered by the villagers due to the loss of certain members of its group must be redressed. Since the villagers, in practice, constitute a family in the broad sense of that term [. . .] they have suffered direct emotional damages as a result of the violations of the Convention. The deeds for which the Government accepted responsibility appear to have caused damages to the Saramaka tribe, aggravated by the Government’s subsequent actions in not recognizing “the rights of the Bushnegroes.” In the Commission’s opinion, a conflictive relationship appears to have existed between the Government and the Saramaka tribe and the killings occurred as a consequence of that situation. 20. The Commission states that the families of the victims demand that certain non-pecuniary provisions be made. For example, they ask that the President of Suriname apologize publicly for the killings; that the chiefs of the Saramaka tribe be invited to come before the Congress of Suriname to receive an apology; and, that the Government publish the operative part of this judgment. They also request the Government to exhume the bodies of the six victims and return them to their respective families; to name a park, square or street in a prominent section of Paramaribo after the Saramaka tribe; and, to investigate the murders committed and punish the guilty parties. 21. The Commission demands that the Government pay the expenses and costs incurred by the families of the victims in asserting their rights before the courts of Suriname, the Commission, and the Court. In its brief, the Commission describes some aspects of that endeavor, which included a visit to Suriname by the attorney representing the victims, a visit to the interior of the country by part of Moiwana 86, the appointment of research assistants to prepare the three hearings for the case before the Commission and the initial memorandum to the Court, and the hiring of an associate professor to take over the university course that the victims’ attorney was unable to give because of his work on this case. 22. The Commission’s brief concludes that: [. . .] In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights and the attorneys representing the victims’ families respectfully request that the Court order the payment of the following amounts: A lump sum of Sf. 5,114,484 broken down as follows: Sf. 1,114,484 for material damages, to the children; Sf. 660,000 for moral damages, to the children; Sf. 1,340,000 for moral damages, to the adult dependents; Sf. 2,000,000 for moral damages, to the tribe of the victims;