made in the judgment is in keeping with the demands of justice.” 34 Consequently, in order to be able to decide this case, the Court requires a minimum degree of certainty about the existence of these persons. 55. The case file before the Court contains evidence on the identity of some of the individuals indicated as victims in this case, particularly birth certificates, baptism certificates, certifications from the Family Status Registry, individual identity documents, death certificates, and powers of attorney that were sent by the representatives. In addition, there are affidavits and testimony provided at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court, as well as statements made before the judicial authority during the domestic criminal investigation and statements made before the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado that also mention the names of people indicated as victims by the representatives. Given that the said evidence was not contested by the State, the Court finds that it is sufficient to authenticate the existence and identity of the individuals who appear on the Commission’s lists, as well as on the most recent updated lists submitted by the representatives. 56. In addition, the Court observes that, from the explanation provided by the representatives in relation to the column headed “location” in their lists, this corresponds to “the specific place where the victims were executed” (supra para. 47); thus, some people included on the lists were victims of execution in the departmental capital of Arambala, or in the canton of Tierra Colorada, the village of Pinalito, and the village of Guacamaya. However, the factual framework of this case does not include events that occurred in these places. Consequently, the Court will not consider the persons who suffered a possible violation of their rights in the said places to be victims in this case, unless the evidence reveals that, at the time of the facts, they were in one of the places that are the object of this case. 57. Considering that the State is not opposed to persons other than those indicated by the Commission being included as presumed victims, owing to the particularities of this case, the Court will consider victims those persons identified and individualized by the Commission in its lists attached to the merits report and/or by the representatives in their lists attached to their final written arguments, who have suffered any human rights violation in the context of the massacres in the village of El Mozote, the canton of La Joya, the villages of Ranchería, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, the canton of Cerro Pando, and a cave on Cerro Ortiz, provided that the Court has the necessary evidence to verify the identity of each of these individuals. Based on these criteria and the evidence that has been provided, this Court has been able to determine a number of victims that is much lower than those on the lists provided. Notwithstanding this, and considering that the State itself provided a list of 936 individualized victims, the Court considers it essential that, in the context of the Single List of Victims that is being drawn up (infra para. 309), the State proceed to make a conclusive determination of other individuals who should also be considered victims and, as appropriate, beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Lastly, this Court will include as Annex “E” to this Judgment, a list of individuals, regarding whom there are indications about their possible status as presumed victims in this case, even though they are not on the lists provided by the parties and the Inter-American Commission. In this regard, the State is requested, in the context of the said Register, to determine whether they should be considered victims and beneficiaries in this case. B. Human rights violations alleged by the representatives 58. The Court has noted that, at the first stage corresponding to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, and based on the State’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the temporal limitation contained in the declaration of June 6, 1995, the representatives alleged that the State was responsible for the violation of certain rights recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and the Convention of Belém do Pará. In general, they submitted to 34 Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 49. 19