when the bodies are not decomposed or mutilated, and there is a well-founded idea of the victim’s identity, such as when the killing and burial of an individual has been witnessed.” 10 11. The Court underscores that, in this case, the remains of Mr. Gómez Palomino were identified by the family members based on the recognition of the victim’s clothing at the time of his detention, as well as by a malformation of the bone in one of his legs. In addition, both his next of kin and the representatives considered that this identification “is valid and sufficient” reason to accept the delivery of the said remains. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that, according to the information presented by the representatives, DNA testing was also ordered during the identification procedure, although there is no further information in this regard. 12. The Court observes that, even though the implementation – or, as appropriate, the result – of a DNA test is pending, the discovery and identification of the remains occurred based on the testimony of an “effective collaborator,” the recognition of the clothes the victim wore at the time of his detention, and the malformation of a bone in one of his legs. In addition, the next of kin and their representatives considered that this identification, made with traditional methods, is “valid and sufficient.” Consequently, the Court finds that this aspect of the reparation has been fulfilled. 13. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the State to locate the remains of Santiago Gómez Palomino and return them to his next of kin, and underlines that, on a previous occasion, the representatives had stated before this Court that Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, the victim’s mother, was “waiting for her son’s body in order to bury him, to place flowers around him and to keep vigil over him, to spend a moment with him, and [she] fear[ed] that [she] would die before this occurred.” 11 On this point in particular, the Court stresses the importance of the fulfillment of this measure, because it provides the victims with moral satisfaction and allows the next of kin to close the mourning process they have been experiencing over the years. 12 14. Furthermore, the Court notes that, according to the Judgment, the State’s obligation also includes the obligation “to provide the necessary conditions to transfer and bury the remains in the place chosen by the next of kin, without any cost to them. In this regard, the State advised that it had assumed all the costs and attached the respective vouchers. Therefore, the Court considers that this aspect of the reparation has also been fulfilled. 15. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the State has complied with the obligation to take, with due diligence, the measures required to locate the mortal remains of Mr. Gómez Palomino and to return them to his next of kin, and to provide the conditions necessary to transfer and bury the remains in a place of their choice. b) Other pending measures of reparation 16. Regarding the other measures pending compliance, in its report of October 7, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 3), the State indicated that it “ha[d] asked the President of 10 ICRC. Missing People, DNA analysis and identification of human remains: A guide to best practice in armed conflicts and other situations of armed violence. 2009, p. 10. 11 Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245, and Case of García and Family Members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 164. 6