9 them.14 Therefore, the State must reactivate the judicial investigations into the events of November 29, 1986, and ensure that these are not suspended because investigations in other cases are ongoing. It must use all legal means available in order to bring all of the facts of the case to light and to prosecute and sanction those responsible, particularly when State agents are involved.15 As stated in the Judgment, the State must also eliminate all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that perpetuate impunity.16 Additionally, the Court deems it necessary that the State report on all of the measures it is taking in order to move investigations forward in this case. In particular, it must provide detailed information on: a) the activities of the “Coordination Team” established in 2005; b) investigations into those persons that have allegedly acknowledged their responsibility for the attack; and c) the measures it has taken in order to ensure that the Amnesty Law referred to by the representatives will not be applied in this case. 14. Finally, the Court notes that the investigations into the obstruction of justice committed by State authorities do not require witness statements in order to proceed, yet the State has offered no information as to its progress in complying with this order. Therefore, the Court requires detailed information from the State on the measures taken to further these investigations. b) Obligation to recover the remains of Moiwana Community members killed during the events of November 29, 1986, and deliver them to surviving community members (Operative Paragraph two of the Judgment) 15. The State reported that it had located some of the remains of the Moiwana Community members in December 2008. It also stated that in February 2009, victims and their representatives traveled to the cemetery where the remains were found in order to perform burial ceremonies according to their traditional customs. During the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 8), the State submitted photographs of the place were the remains are ostensibly located. 17 The State indicated that the victims have requested that a plaque be placed at the burial site, and it is willing to finance this. Finally, the State affirmed that is currently undertaking a more exhaustive investigation in order to fulfill this obligation. 14 195(a). Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 8, paras. 86(10), 86(43), and 15 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 117; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 101; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 117. 16 17 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 8, para. 207. Cf. Letter from the Major of Police to the Prosecutor General of June 16, 2008, and attached photographs (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome II, folios 331-335).