providing accessible and detailed information to the victims’ next of kin regarding the procedure and what they can expect.” They also appreciated greatly the Foundation’s commitment, and urged the State to “guarantee all the necessary conditions to allow the Foundation to continue its work.” 21. In this regard, the Commission appreciated the measures adopted to comply with the obligation to identify and return the remains to the next of kin of the victims. It indicated that “it awaits further information from the State on the actions aimed at overcoming the reported difficulties and on the progress made with the rest of the procedure,” and that the State should continue “providing the necessary resources to allow the work to be performed so that the identification and return of the remains is carried out within the time frame granted by the Court.” 22. The Court assesses positively the efforts made by the State to comply with this measure. The representatives and the Commission both agree in appreciating the steps taken by the State and the technical and professional work performed by the Foundation in the exhumation of the bodies. At the same time, the Court takes into account the State’s comments on the difficulties encountered to compare the DNA samples extracted from the victims’ next of kin with the remains, because these were not classified individually and were in poor condition, and that, consequently, there is a risk that it may not be possible to extract DNA samples. 23. In addition, the Court recalls the provisions of paragraph 249 of the judgment, which stated that “to make the individualization of the those exhumed viable and effective, the State must advise the representatives of the victims in writing of the procedure for the identification and return of the remains of those killed during the massacre and, if necessary, request their collaboration for the pertinent effects.” Therefore, the Court finds that, as indicated in the judgment, the State must continue reporting on the measures implemented to identify those exhumed and the results, in order to comply with the eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment. D) Obligation to implement training courses on human rights for different State authorities (twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment) 24. In its report of December 21, 2010, the State indicated that “through the Training Unit of the Public Prosecution Service, and with the support of COPREDEH, it had prepared a project to offer the course ‘Application of national and international human rights law in proceedings for grave violations in Guatemala,’ which seeks to train public prosecutors and assistant prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service.” It specified that the course is intended to be offered in four modules “covering concepts, classification, human rights institutions, and specific cases of the Inter-Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” It also indicated that, owing to the lack of funds it has not been possible to open the course immediately; therefore, “the Public Prosecution Service is currently seeking the necessary financial resources to implement the course.” Lastly, the State indicated that the Ministry of National Defense “has advised that human rights issues are included at all levels of academic training (mid-level, university, and specializations).” In their observations, the representatives indicated that “regarding training for 25. the Armed Forces, the State merely indicated that, according to information from the Ministry of Defense, human rights topics are included at all levels of training, […] without providing specific details that would allow the purpose, content and impact to be evaluated.” Similarly, they added that “despite the State’s obligation to “enhance” 8