73 testimonies, that help to clarify the facts under investigation, and even invalidates the practice of procedures for taking evidence in order to shed light on the facts of the investigation, identify the possible perpetrators and participants and determine the possible criminal responsibilities. However, this does not exonerate the State authorities from making the necessary efforts to comply with this obligation. 281 237. Third, the Court notes that in February 2003, the thirteen skeletal remains 282 recovered in the exhumation of April 2002 283 were handed over to Francisco Sic and Máxima Emiliana García Valey, despite the fact that only two of these remains corresponded to their next of kin. 284 The Court recalls that receiving the body of a deceased person is of the utmost importance for their next of kin, since it allows them to bury the body according to their beliefs, as well as to close the mourning process. 285 Although Francisco Sic and Máxima Emiliana García Valey “undertook to deliver the remains to other family members,” 286 the Court considers that this was an obligation of the State that could not be delegated to third parties. 287 238. Fourth, there is no record in the case file before this Court that any additional procedures were carried out to identify the five persons whose skeletal remains were exhumed in April 2002, 288 May 2007 289 and March 2013, 290 but who were not identified on those occasions. There is also no record of actions subsequent to said exhumation of March 2013, carried out within the framework of File No. M.P. 247-1997-1378 before the District Prosecutor's Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá, aimed at finding Gregorio (or Gorgonio) Gonzales Gonzales, Gabino Román, Cruz Pérez Amperez, Eustaquio Ixtecoc and Rafael Depaz. Moreover, in the “Expert Report of the Anthropological Forensic Investigation carried out in the San Francisco Cemetery, in the village of Chuateguá,” presented by the FAFG to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in December 2014 within said process, there is no mention of any efforts to find Dionicio Bachán in the exhumations of March 2012 or March 2013, even though his disappearance was also Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 135, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 145. Cf. Report of FAFG of December 18, 2002 (evidence file, folios 2035 to 2037). 283 Cf. Record of exhumation of bodies in clandestine cemeteries issued by the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal on April 9 to 13, 2002 (evidence file, folios 1938 to 1941). 284 Cf. Report of FAFG of June 2011 (evidence file, folios 2035 to 2037), and decision of the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá of February 27, 2003 (evidence file, folios 1950 and 1951). 285 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 245, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 274. 286 Cf. Decision of the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá of February 27, 2002 (evidence file, folios 1950 and 1951). 287 The Court also confirmed that three unidentified skeletal remains were delivered to Tarcila Milián Morales “in deposit.” Cf. Decision of the assistant prosecutor of the Salamá Public Prosecution Service of October 16, 2008 (evidence file, folio 11845). In addition, the remains of Adela Florentina Alvarado García and Luciano Alvarado Xitumul were delivered to Francisca González Tecú, and the remains of Lucia Xitumul Ixpancoc and of the newborn baby aged 0 to 3 months were handed over to William Misael Ixtecoc Xitumul. Cf. Record of September 22, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1583). The Court does not have information as to whether the persons identified were family members of the persons who received their remains. 288 On December 19, 2002, the FAFG submitted its report of the Anthropological Forensic Analysis to the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá. In this report, the FAFG indicated that, according to the statements in the case file and the interviews conducted, the exhumation should account for 12 victims. After the corresponding analyses, the FAFG determined that thirteen incomplete skeletons were found, of which only four persons were identified. On February 27, 2003, the formal judicial identification of human remains was carried out before the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal through the identification of remnants of the victims’ clothing and belongings by their relatives. In this act, the remains of eight other persons were identified. Although the FAFG report also mentions Raymunda Sical Corazón as one of the missing victims, since she was allegedly executed along with Silvestre Sic Xitumul, she was not identified by the FAFG or by family members. Cf. FAFG Report presented on December 19, 2002 (evidence file, folios 1968 and 2035 a 2037), and Record of Legal Identification of Human Remains before the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal of February 27, 2003 (evidence file, folios 1952 to 1955). 289 Cf. FAFG Report of February 27, 2008 (evidence file, folios 11861 to 11903), and official letter of the FAFG, October 16, 2008 (evidence file, folio 11843). 290 File No. M.P. 247-1997-1378 before the District Prosecutor's Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá states that on December 22, 2014 the Public Prosecution Service received from the FAFG, the “Expert Opinion of the Forensic Anthropological Investigation carried out in the San Francisco Cemetery, in Chuateguá village”, indicating that “the investigation was conducted in two stages, the first […] on March 7, 2012 with a negative result and the second on March 20, 2013, with positive results,” since a human skeleton was found that was not identified. Cf. FAFG Report of June 5, 2014 (evidence file, folios 9247, 9250, 9252, 9270 and 9276). 281 282