83 Annexes I and II of this judgment who, as victims of the violations declared in paragraphs 155, 156, 160, 164, 203, 265, shall be the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Regarding said persons, the Court found, within the body of evidence, the necessary proof to confirm their identity (supra para. 65). 273. However, it was not possible to find in the body of evidence the documentation necessary to confirm the identity of the persons listed in Annex III of this judgment. Likewise, Annex IV of this judgment includes the names of persons allegedly displaced, but regarding whom the representatives did not specify whether they remained displaced after March 9, 1987, the date on which Guatemala recognized the contentious jurisdiction of this Court. 274. Since the Court has already established that in this case the application of the exception provided for in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure is reasonably justified, the Court considers it appropriate that, within six months of notification of this judgment, the representatives provide the Court with documentation that proves the identity of the persons listed in Annex III of this judgment, and that they also specify whether the persons mentioned in Annex IV remained in a situation of displacement after March 9, 1987. The purpose of this is to ensure that such persons may be considered as victims in the instant case until they are duly identified or it is proven that they remained displaced after said date. To this end, the Court will assess this matter in exercise of its powers of supervision of this judgment. 275. The provisions of this sub-section do not exclude the right of those members of Chichupac village or the neighboring communities of Xeabaj, Chijom, Coyojá, El Tablón, Toloxcoc, Chirrum, El Chol and El Apazote who were not presented as victims by the representatives or the Commission, or who appear in Annexes III or IV of this judgment and are not incorporated as victims within the 6-month period established supra, to claim, in accordance with domestic law, the corresponding compensatory measures in their favor. B. National Reparations Program 276. In its answering brief, the State indicated that it already has a public reparations policy aimed at compensating victims of human rights violations suffered during the internal armed conflict, through the National Reparations Program (PNR). It pointed out that this policy was created as a result of the peace negotiations, and contemplates individual and collective reparation measures in the material, moral and cultural aspects. It explained that said Program has been subject to improvements in terms of the procedures established to qualify as beneficiaries, as well as the definition of the forms and amounts of the compensation. It pointed out that the PNR provides measures of material restitution, financial compensation, psychosocial assistance, rehabilitation and “measures to dignify the victims (moral and community redress),” and has an office in the municipality of Rabinal, as well as personnel capable of attending to the victims and their families in the Maya Achí language. It questioned that the Court “should act as a parallel body of reparation for some of the victims of the armed conflict [...], with different procedures to determine the beneficiaries and to define the forms and amounts of reparations which, in addition to exceeding the financial capacities of the State, hinder the proper functioning of the Program.” Furthermore, it maintained that “the majority” of the victims have already been compensated through the PNR and have signed a settlement in which they agreed not to file any other claims against the State in future for the facts of this case. It also presented a list of the 67 persons that “have already received compensation from that program.” 277. The representatives argued that, from a formal point of view, the PNR “is not questionable” in terms of its objectives; however, “the letter” differs “enormously” from reality. They highlighted various problems with the implementation of the program, 331 and argued that the financial 331 They argued that the amounts of the compensation “do not constitute fair and decent reparation for the moral harm” caused to their communities; that the payment process is slow; that there is confusion among families as to who receives