they did not respect territorial limits, which would explain why the list of victims provided by the representatives stipulated that some individuals died in places nearby the places indicated. In this regard, they explained that the places that the Court had expressly excluded in its Judgment were: (1) adjoining, or very near the places that the Court itself had recognized as scenes of the massacre, or (2) territorial districts – cantons – in which the villages are located. In this regard, they affirmed that part of the village of Los Toriles (which the Court had recognized was affected by the massacre) is located in the canton of Tierra Colorada (expressly excluded) and adjoins the village of El Pinalito (expressly excluded), which also forms part of the canton of Tierra Colorada. Furthermore, they indicated that the lists presented “do not mention the village of La Guacamaya,” rather the reference to “La Guacamaya” in the lists “refers to the canton of this name.” The representatives explained that, in view of the impossibility of specifically determining the exact place in the canton where the victims were executed, “Tierra Colorada” and “Guacamaya” were indicated on the lists. They also explained that the village of El Pinalito adjoins the village of Los Toriles and “was also affected by the massacre, although to a lesser degree.” In addition, they clarified that Arambala “is not a department or a municipal capital,” but rather it is “a municipality in the northern part of the department of Morazán”; in other words, “part of the area affected by the massacre,” and that the canton of Tierra Colorada and some of its villages are located within the municipality of Arambala. Nevertheless, the reference to “Arambala” in the lists that were presented alluded “to the town (urban area) of Arambala.” Furthermore, the representatives specified during the proceedings before the Court that the lists they presented “are absolutely imperfect.” Regarding the second argument, they noted that, during the proceedings before the Court, the State had acknowledged its responsibility for the facts on several occasions and had referred to places that were expressly excluded in the Judgment. 13. Lastly, the representatives argued that, since the Court had ordered the State to continue to implement fully the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote,” the territorial limitation established in the Judgment “could lead to complications during the process of monitoring this measure.” Consequently, they asked the Court to clarify the meaning, scope and relationship between paragraph 56 of its judgment and the elaboration of the said List. 14. The State maintained that, indeed, the events had a massive dimension and affected populations and individuals who lived in different villages, cantons and municipalities, especially in the municipal jurisdictions of Meanguera and Arambala, department of Morazán. In addition, it confirmed that it was difficult to determine the borders of the political-administrative division of the territories affected by the massacres, specifically as regards being certain of the exact places where the human rights violations were perpetrated during the events that were the subject-matter of the Judgment. It added that, based on these considerations, the acknowledgements of international responsibility “tended to locate the events […] in an extensive list of villages and cantons, without restricting them to a closed or strictly delimited list.” It also noted that the operation started in the town of Arambala and continued to El Mozote passing through the village of El Pinalito, in the canton of Tierra Colorada. Furthermore, it clarified that the village of El Mozote itself is located in the canton of La Guacamaya, in the municipality of Meanguera. In addition, it indicated that it understood that the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote” would be the technical instrument and the appropriate procedure for complying with the obligation established in the Judgment, consisting in the “clear determination of other individuals who should also be considered victims and, thus, beneficiaries of the reparations.” 4