the Judgment to the rightful need for justice of the inhabitants of the five places where [the] facts occurred” in the instant case. In this regard, the Court noted that the representatives presented evidence concerning the identity of the persons they indicated as presumed victims in this case; in particular, providing birth and death certificates, and testimony given by third parties before notary public. In the case file, the Court also has testimony given before prosecutors and court authorities during the domestic criminal proceedings in which the names of presumed victims indicated by the representatives are also mentioned. Given that the State did not contest this evidence, the Court finds that it is sufficient to prove the existence and identity of the presumed victims named by the representatives, most of whom were also presented by the Commission. 50. The Court also observes that, following the presentation of its final written arguments, the State withdrew its acknowledgment of international responsibility for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 6 and 17 of the American Convention to the detriment of “Juan Burrero,” since this individual’s correct name is “Juan Osorio Alvarado,” who, according to the State, at the time of the facts was not a minor. However, the evidence in the case file shows that Juan Osorio Alvarado was a minor at that time and also when the State accepted the Court's contentious jurisdiction.26 The Court also observes that, on at least three procedural occasion, namely in its answer to the submission, during the public hearing, and in its final written arguments, the State reiterated its acknowledgment of responsibility for the violation of the said rights to the detriment of “Juan Burrero.” In other words, the State could have verified the identity and name of Juan Burrero and, yet, did not raise an objection until after the representatives had corrected this person’s name, indicating that his correct name is Juan Osorio Alvarado. In this regard, since it is the same person, the State’s argument for not recognizing Juan Osorio Alvarado as an alleged victim is inadmissible. 51. Lastly, based on the provisions of Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, since this case deals with five massacres, and taking into account its magnitude, the nature of the facts, and the time that has passed, the Court finds it reasonable that the identification and individualization of each presumed victims is complex. Nevertheless, as already mentioned, in order to decide this case, the Court must have a minimum level of certainty regarding the existence of the said individuals. Based on the foregoing, and considering that the State does not oppose including other individuals as presumed victims, provided that this is in keeping with the preliminary objection filed, and “no error or ambiguity in their identification is determined,” owing to the special characteristics of this case, the Court will consider as presumed victims those persons identified and individualized by the representatives who have suffered any human rights violation that is included within the sphere of the Court’s temporal competence and the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility, as decided in Chapters IV and V of this Judgment, since the Court has the necessary evidence to confirm the identity of each of those persons.27 B. Other facts and human rights violations alleged by the representatives 52. The representatives alleged the presumed forced disappearance of 32 persons, which occurred after the five massacres that are the subject of the instant case. However, the Court notes that the Commission did not mention the facts alleged by the representatives in 26 Birth certificate of Juan Osorio Alvarado (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 16995). According to this document, Juan Osorio Alvarado was born on August 19, 1976. 27 The only person for whom the Court has no evidence is Regina Sic Siana, mentioned by the representatives in their final written arguments and their corrigenda (merits file, tome III, folio 1572). 21