because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Tribunal shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims,” and since the State did not oppose the inclusion of persons other than those indicated by the Commission as presumed victims, it determined that the universe of presumed victims would be constituted by 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 the brief with final arguments. 26. In this regard, it should be recalled that the lists of presumed victims and next of kin provided by the Commission and the representatives differed, inasmuch as the representative’ lists included more people that those of the Commission and the latter included names that did not appear on the former. In addition, the said lists contained inconsistencies with regard to the names, ages, relationships, and location of the persons mentioned as survivors and displaced. 16 27. In view of the foregoing, during the public hearing held in this case, the Commission and the representatives were expressly asked to provide information on this point and were given the opportunity to include any information and documentation they considered pertinent with their final written observations and arguments, respectively. 17 The Court took into account the answers provided when deciding this matter. In addition, the Court specifically asked the representatives to explain the meaning of the word “location” that appeared on its lists of victims; in other words, whether this word referred to the origin of the victims, or to the place where they were presumably executed; to which they responded that it referred “to the specific location in which the victims were executed.” 18 Even though the representatives had several procedural opportunities to incorporate the documentation and information they considered pertinent, it was only now, in their request for interpretation that they forwarded the annexes entitled “Map identifying the area affected by the massacre” and “Map of the municipality of Arambala.” In this regard, it should be noted that: (a) this information was forwarded for the first time with the request for interpretation; (b) it does not refer to supervening facts, and (c) no arguments of force majeure or grave impediment were presented in this regard. In other words, the evidence was not presented at the opportune procedural stage of the proceedings on merits. It is also pertinent to point out that, owing to the condition in which they were provided, it is not possible to verify whether these maps correspond to the period when the facts of the case took place. 28. Now, in order to make a clear determination of the victims of the human rights violations established in the Judgment, the Court took into consideration the description of the proven facts in the places in which the massacres were perpetrated, as established in the Commission’s Merits Report and by the evidence provided by the parties and the Commission up until that time during the proceedings. Indeed, in its Merits Report, the Commission described, among the facts of the case and under the heading “The massacres,” that “[t]he village of El Mozote, the canton of La Joya, the villages of Ranchería, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, and the canton of Cerro Pando, places in which the facts of this case occurred, are located in the jurisdiction of Meanguera, in the northern part of the department of Morazán, El Salvador.” 19 16 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, para. 52. 17 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 45. 18 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 47. 19 IACHR, Merits Report No. 177/10, November 3, 2003, para. 50. 9