61 62. It should be recalled that, in contentious cases before the Court, the interested party must advise who is or are the beneficiaries.252 In this regard, in paragraph 48 of the judgment delivered on April 29, 2004, this Court considered that the individuals indicated in paragraph 42(48) of that judgment were the victims and indicated that those identified subsequently could also be considered victims. Although the representatives and the Commission stated that they had encountered difficulty in identifying the victims and the State indicated that, pursuant to domestic law, it was necessary to identify them without offering any other elements of evidence to this end, this Court, following the criteria established on another occasion,253 considers that it is unable to establish any compensation for victims who have not been individualized at this time. Without detriment to the foregoing, this Court reserves the possibility to determine, in the corresponding section, other forms of reparation in favor of all the members of the communities affected by the facts of the case. 63. Given the specific characteristics of the case sub judice; the events that took place on July 18, 1982, the day of the massacre, which some inhabitants of the village of Plan de Sánchez and other nearby villages such as Chipuerta, Joya de Ramos, Raxjut, Volcanillo, Coxojabaj, Las Tunas, Las Minas, Las Ventanas, Ixchel, Chiac, Concul and Chichupac survived; and also events that have occurred since March 9, 1987, when the State accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; Guatemala’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, and the arguments of the Commission, the representatives, and the State about the problems that exist to identify the victims, beneficiaries of the reparations, this Court considers that those victims have been identified, for whom the representatives submitted a birth certificate, an identity card, or a marriage certificate, or another document issued by a competent authority which refers to one of the victims, such as a death certificate. 64. In this regard, the Court observes that, on the list of victims included in the proven facts (supra para. 49(10)), there are some people with the same or similar names. For instance: Domingo Ic Rojas, Guillermo Toj Manuel, Humberto Rojas, Juana Juárez Grave, Justina Sánchez, Plácido Jerónimo Grave, Rosa Raxcacó Juárez, Juan Álvarez Pérez, Eugenia Morales Iboy/Eugenia Ivoy, Leocadia Rojas/Leocadia Ic Rojas, Ramón Rojas/Ramón Rojas Ic, Salomé Rojas/Salomé Ic Rojas, Virgilio Rojas/Virgilio Ic Rojas, Paulina Guzmán/Paulina Guzmán Alvarado, Alejandro Grave Oxlaj/Alejandro Grave, Valeria Grave Cajbón/Valerio Grave Cajbón and Juan Cajbón/Juan Cajbón Corazón. Considering the difficulties in identifying the victims in this case, the Court has considered it appropriate to maintain their names as distinct victims, without detriment to the contrary being established (in other words, that it is the same person) when the corresponding compensation is claimed. The Court also notes that Francisco Tecú Manuel and Leandra Chajáj were included in paragraph 42(48) of the judgment on merits as survivors of the massacre. However, the representatives clarified that Mariana Chajáj should be considered instead of Leandra Chajáj. The representatives remitted the death certificates of Francisco Tecú Manuel and Mariana Chajáj, executed in the massacre (supra para. 49(10.8.ii)); consequently, they have not been considered surviving victims of the massacre. 65. The individual amount of the compensation established by the Court will be delivered to each beneficiary as a surviving victim of the massacre. Should any 252 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 273. 253 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 273.