7 the Inter-American Court. Still, the representatives stressed that the State “has done little[,] if anything[,] to assess other […] forms of evidence that may be probative of the events of […] 1986.” This is so despite the fact that “there is ample documentary and other evidence available to the State, including […] public admissions of responsibility by the then-military leadership, which could form the basis of a judicial process.” They indicated, moreover, that “the notion that the State can only conduct one investigation at a time […] is deeply troubling.” The State’s failure to investigate in this case is “a major source of fear for the victims,” given that persons who “publicly took responsibility for the massacre continue to be active in public life” and at least one has “made threatening and widely heard public statements about the [investigation of] the massacre without any public response by State officials.” The representatives also affirmed that “[t]here is no available evidence [to] show that the State has taken any steps […] to ‘remove all obstacles […] that perpetuate impunity.’” In particular, the representatives expressed concern with respect to the applicability of the 1992 Amnesty Law to the massacre at Moiwana Village, which “can only be determined once the facts of the case and the bases for suspect liability have been ascertained.” Finally, the representatives highlighted that the State has also failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible for “obstructing the 1989 criminal investigation,” even though this obligation does not depend on the testimonies of the victims themselves. 10. The Commission indicated that after more than twenty years, there are still no advances in the investigation of the massacre. It stated that the fact that witnesses do not come forward to testify may be due to fear arising from continued impunity; thus, the State must adopt sufficient security mechanisms so that witnesses feel safe. In any case, the lack of testimonies cannot be used as an excuse for not proceeding with investigations, as there is other evidence available to the State, including alleged perpetrators' public acknowledgments of responsibility. Therefore, the Commission urged the Court to “request a full report from the State” on the steps it has taken to comply with this obligation. 11. In its Judgment, the Court held that Suriname’s gravely deficient investigation into the November 29, 1986 attack upon Moiwana Village, its violent obstruction of justice, and the extended period of time that had transpired without the facts having been brought to light and the responsible parties sanctioned defied the standards for access to justice and due process established in the American Convention. 8 The Tribunal highlights that in this case, the State is thus bound to undertake two separate lines of investigation: one relating to the events of November 1986 and another relating to the obstruction of justice. 9 It is lamentable that twenty-four years after the attack, and five years after service of the Judgment, the State has not been able to provide the Tribunal with any details on advances in either one of these investigations. The Court notes, in particular, that the State has not provided any information on the progress or the findings of the “Coordination Team” established five years ago for the investigation of the massacre at Moiwana Village. 8 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 202. 9 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 8, paras. 205-207.