10 16. The representatives stated that “[a] simple request for information sent by the Attorney General to the Police led to the identification of the location of some of the remains, yet the State has previously and adamantly asserted […] that [it] has no knowledge of these matters.” 17. The Commission valued the information presented by the State and considered it to be a positive step towards compliance with this obligation. Nevertheless, it underscored the importance of this obligation in light of the Moiwana Community’s “deeply held religious and cultural traditions” and considered the prompt submission of detailed information on the State’s efforts to comply with this obligation to be essential. 18. The Court values the positive steps taken by the State in order to locate the victims’ remains. However, it also considers that the information provided by the parties is insufficient for the purpose of evaluating the State’s compliance with this obligation. The documents submitted by the State, 18 which date back to 1993, provide a description of the remains of various persons, but do not indicate whether those remains are the same ones that were discovered at a gravesite in 1993, 19 nor do they state how the remains have been identified as belonging to victims of the 1986 attack on Moiwana Village. Similarly, it is not clear from the parties' submissions whether the State has properly identified the remains located in 2008 and, if so, whether it has delivered those remains to the surviving members of the Moiwana Community. The Tribunal highlights the importance of this obligation, given the Moiwana Community’s beliefs regarding the proper burial of the deceased, 20 and requests that the parties provide detailed information on whether the remains found in 1993 and in 2008 have been properly identified as belonging to the victims in this case. The Court reminds the State that its obligation does not merely consist in finding remains, but also in conducting tests or analyses to show that the remains recovered belong to victims in the present case. 21 Thus, the State must also submit information regarding the “technical and scientific means” it has used in order to identify the remains found, taking into account forensic standards, as ordered in the Judgment.22 18 Cf. Documents dated June 23, 1993, and signed by Dr. M.A. Vrede, pathologist of the Pathological Anatomy Laboratory of the Academic Hospital in Paramaribo (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome II, folios 313-330). These documents were submitted by the State during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8). 19 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 8, para. 86(31). 20 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 8, paras. 86(7)-86(9). 21 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C, No. 162, para. 114; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 34; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 13, para. 82. 22 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 208.