8 12. Accordingly, with respect to the investigations into the attack, the State must consult with the representatives in order to learn what measures they consider indispensable so that victims will come forward to testify, and it must report its findings and achievements to the Tribunal. In light of the State’s proposal that witnesses be interrogated at its seat, the Tribunal reminds the parties that it is not a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of individuals may be analyzed. 10 The State must be able to fulfill its duties relating to the protection of witnesses subject to its jurisdiction. The Court reiterates that it is the State’s responsibility to “provide adequate safety guarantees to […] victims, […] witnesses, judicial officers, prosecutors, and other […] law enforcement officials”11 participating in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. In particular, the State must protect these parties from harassment and threats designed to obstruct proceedings and to prevent the identification of those responsible for the attacks. 12 The Court finds that the State’s efforts to date have been insufficient to instill confidence in witnesses as to their safety, and it notes the representatives' allegations of threats by a person in a “prominent political position” in Suriname with particular concern. Therefore, the Court finds it necessary to request specific information from the State on the threats alleged and on the measures it is undertaking to confront possible intimidation against potential witnesses. 13. Moreover, this Court has repeatedly stated that investigations cannot depend upon the initiative of victims and their family members or upon their submission of evidence.13 Even so, the State has provided no information on other avenues it has pursued in order to investigate the 1986 attack against Moiwana Village, nor has it indicated whether the persons referred to by the representatives have been investigated. The State has also identified at least one person as a possible perpetrator; however, due to an alleged lack of resources, it has subordinated the investigation into his responsibility for the attacks in this case to the conclusion of another, presumably unrelated, investigation. The Court reiterates the importance of this obligation for the integral reparation of the victims and their family members. As long as impunity persists in this case, surviving victims will continue to fear for their personal safety and will not be able to return to their ancestral lands, as they dread that spirits angered by their failure to secure justice will seek vengeance against 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134; Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, footnote 79; and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 24. 11 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 207. 12 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 199; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 171; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 176. 13 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, para. 146. See also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 10, para. 177; Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 175; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 153.