case of the sisters Carmelina and Ana Julia Ramírez Mejía, the Commission indicated that, in the understanding that they had been forcibly disappeared, they were excluded from the final list of victims in the merits report. With regard to the survivors and the next of kin, the Commission indicated that some of those on its list of victims are both next of kin and survivors; some are only next of kin “because, for example, they were away from the place and days later returned and realized that their family members had died,” and others had no next of kin in the area, but were there and survived the massacre. However, among all these people, the Commission had found it impossible to determine who was in each specific situation, in the understanding that it was the State’s obligation to identify the people on those lists who were in each of the said categories. This situation also occurs in relation to the alleged violation of the right to property, because it is mentioned in all the testimonies, but, owing to the particular circumstances of the case, it was not possible to make a factual determination of which possessions of each person were seized or destroyed. 47. For their part, the representatives mentioned that there are different lists based on the work of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado over the last 20 years, which “have numerous shortcomings,” and change daily; hence they considered it essential that, as a measure of reparation, the State be ordered to draw up official lists of victims, because it had greater resources available to it. For the same reason, the representatives indicated that they were unable to draw up a specific list of individuals whose right to property had been violated; nevertheless, they maintained that the facts themselves reveal that, at least, most of the surviving victims of the massacre were also victims of the violation of their right to property, because most of the testimonies indicated that their homes were burned down and their property was destroyed. Regarding the column headed “location” that appears on the lists provided by the representatives, they clarified that this refers “to the specific place in which the victims were executed.” 48. The State indicated that it agreed with the victims that the list of victims should be as complete as possible and that it should be drawn up in the specific form of a formal permanent and open record; in other words, that it should remain open to future inclusions as the existence of new victims is determined. Regarding the Mejía Ramírez girls, the State indicated that their forced disappearance did not contradict the acknowledgement of the facts of the massacre of El Mozote and nearby places; therefore, should they be found and “even if they are found alive, the State also considers them to be victims […] in this case, since immediate members of the girls’ family were exterminated.” 49. First, this Court has verified that, with its brief submitting the case, the Commission presented an attachment entitled “Victims who died in the massacres” in which it indicated that “[t]he petitioners included Ana Julia and Carmelina Ramírez Mejía as victims of the massacre. However, the Commission notes that the Ramírez Mejía girls are disappeared and appear as victims in case 12,517 Gregoria Herminia Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, which is under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court.” Meanwhile, in the annexes entitled “List of Murdered Victims,” attached by the representatives to both the pleadings and motions brief and to their final written arguments, the names of Ana Julia and Carmelina Ramírez Mejía (sic) appear, with the clarification that both are disappeared. In this regard, on August 31, 2011, the Court delivered judgment in the Case of Contreras et al v. El Salvador, ruling that the State was responsible for the violation of certain rights recognized in the American Convention, to the detriment of the sisters Ana Julia and Carmelina, whose correct last name is Mejía Ramírez, and also of their next of kin, owing to their forced disappearance, and ordered specific measures of reparation.30 All things considered, since the forced disappearance of the said sisters has already been the subject of an earlier ruling by the Court, it is not appropriate to make any determination in their regard in the instant case. Consequently, the Court will exclude the names of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez from the lists of “killed” or “murdered” victims. 30 No. 232. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C 17