50. In addition, the Court recalls that, under Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify [in the submission of the case] one or more of the alleged victims of the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” In this regard, from the time it submitted the case and during the proceedings before the Court, the Commission repeatedly referred to the impossibility of identifying all the victims in this case, because it is exceptional in nature due to its gravity and its massive dimensions, as well as to the specific circumstances of the case, an opinion shared by the representatives and not contested by the State. The reasons given by both the Commission and the representatives to justify the application of this provision are: the massive scale of the events, which encompassed seven villages; several of the massacres were accompanied by setting fire to the places where the bodies of the murdered people were left; the number of children who lost their life in the massacres, because, owing to their age, there was a more than normal deterioration of their remains; there are no records or documents that could provide a list of the people who were living in the cantons and villages affected; most of the surviving next of kin had to take refuge in other places and even outside El Salvador, and the first measures taken by the State, taking statements and performing exhumations, took place more than 10 years after the massacres and were not completed at that time. 51. The Court notes that it is difficult to identify and individualize each presumed victim owing to the scale of this case, which relates to massacres perpetrated in seven different places, to the nature of the events and the circumstances surrounding them, and to the time that has passed. Consequently, it finds it reasonable to apply Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of procedure in this case. 52. In this regard, the Court has noted that the lists presented by the Commission in its brief submitting the case and the lists presented by the representatives in their briefs of May 23 and August 12, 2011, and May 23, 2012, differ because there are more people on the lists of the representatives than on the lists of the Commission. When comparing the most recent lists presented by the representatives with the lists presented by the Commission, the Court also noted that the latter includes names that do not appear on the former. In addition, the said lists are inconsistent as regards the names, ages and relationships, as well as the addresses of the individuals mentioned as survivors and displaced. Furthermore, The Court has noted that some women were pregnant when they were executed. 53. In addition, the Court takes note of the certifications provided by the representatives indicating that, in the case of the village of El Mozote, the ledgers recording births and deaths prior to 1983 no longer exist, because “they were destroyed during the armed conflict” and that the files of the Family Status Records of the Mayor's Office of the municipality of Arambala “were partially destroyed by the armed conflict,” so that only some records exist.31 Accordingly, with regard to some people for whom birth certificates were requested, the Family Status Records responded that it was not possible to find any record of their birth “because the records were destroyed during the armed conflict,” or that “it is not possible to provide this certificate because the records of births for that year cannot be found.”32 54. As it has previously,33 the Court considers that, in application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for a person to be considered a victim and receive reparation, he or she must be reasonably identified. The Court recalls that its intention is not “to obstruct the development of the proceedings with formalities, but rather, to the contrary, to ensure that the determination 31 Certification of the Mayor’s Office of Villa de Meanguera, department of Morazán, El Salvador, issued on August 10, 2011 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 18 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 7026), and Certification of the Mayor’s Office of Arambala, department of Morazán, El Salvador, issued on August 10, 2011 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 18 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 7027). 32 Cf. Compact disc containing documents that prove the relationship between the victims who were executed and the survivors (evidence file, tome XVI, annex 36 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 9898). 33 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 49. 18