death certification of Mr. “Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega,” in which, among other things, the "Protocol Autopsy” number is provided as “two thousand seven dash ninety-two”; “Act of Recognition” of the corpse of “Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega” signed by a man with the surname Hurtado Mendoza; letter dated February 26, 2007, signed by an official of the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office addressed to the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Court, in which “copy of the receipt of burial of the body marked with Autopsy No. 2007-1992, removed on May 16, 1992 by Mr. Ladislao Alberto Huaman Loayza [...], by order of the Judge.” In that document, the type of relationship between Mr. Huaman Loayza and the victim is not indicated. 41 In her observations on the information provided by the State, the common intervener Feria Tinta stated that Mr. Aguilar Vega’s wife said that she has not yet received the remains of her husband and that the person to whom the State claims that they delivered the remains "is not a family member of hers and does not know the individual at all.” 38. There is a lack of clarity regarding the person to whom Mr. Aguilar Vega’s remains were allegedly given to as well as the legality of the delivery, and Mr. Aguilar Vega’s widow claims not to have received the remains and does not know the person who allegedly received the remains. The Court finds that the State must report if the requirements were met to effectuate the delivery of the identified remains to the next of kin and to indicate whether this occurred pursuant to a court order. The Court also requires the State to implement all necessary measures to establish with certainty whether the remains of Mr. Aguilar Vega that were reliably identified and what happened to them and that, prior to delivering the remains to the next of kin, it adopt appropriate measures to prove that the remains are in fact those of Mr. Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega. The State must provide supporting documentation for such an explanation. Considering that the time period for compliance with this measure expired more than six years ago and the importance that this type of measure is for the next of kin of the deceased victim, the Court requires the State to comply with this measure as soon as possible. In that regard, the Court recalls the importance of compliance with this measure of reparation for the families of the victims because it involves a moral satisfaction and allows closure for the grieving process that has developed over the years. 42 39. In regards to the obligation to ensure that all inmates that died as a result of the attack in the Castro Castro Prison are identified and their remains returned to their next of kin, the State provided information on the delivery of the remains and not on whether the deceased had been identified. Peru provided copies of the Edicts which “summon[ed] the appearance" of the “next of kin of the victims” on “20 and 21 of [June 2006]" and “7 and 8 of March 2007" to establish “family relationship.” 43 Peru argues that despite such actions, there was a lack of "requests from the next of kin [for] the delivery of the bodies.” The Court considers that, although the common interveners made no reference to whether the State had identified all the deceased inmates, Peru has not dispelled the doubts that arose in the merits stage of this case with respect to the obligation to identify all inmates who died (supra Considering clause 32). In addition, the State's assertions do not make clear whether the delivery to the next of kin of the remains of one or more of the 41 victims in this case is still pending. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court requires that Peru present clear 41 Annex 14 to the State’s report of September 24, 2013 (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VI, folios 2775 and 2776). 42 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. V. The Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C No. 252, para. 114, y Case of Castillo Páez V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 10. 43 “Edicts” signed by Judge of the 2nd Supraprovincial Criminal Court (annex 18 to the State’s report of September 24, 2013, case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VI, folios 2811 and 2812). 17