identified in this case and establishes criteria for the State to determine other persons who could acquire this status and who should be covered by the reparations ordered. B. Obligation of the State to determine other persons who should be considered victims under the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote” 32. Regarding the reparations ordered, in the section entitled “A. Injured Party,” the Court established the following: 306. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is the party that has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers as “injured parties” those persons included in the lists of: (i) victims who were executed; (ii) the surviving victims; (iii) the next of kin of the victims who were executed, and (iv) the victims forcibly displaced, that are included as Annexes identified in the Appendixes “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” to this Judgment. As victims of the violations declared in Chapters VII and VIII, they will be beneficiaries and recipients of the measures that the Court establishes in this chapter. […] 310. The Court observes that, owing to the particular characteristics of the case, and for the reasons already indicate in this Judgment (supra paras. 59 and 51), it has not been possible to identify and individualize all the victims. Consequently, the Court considers that, in the instant case, there is a reasonable justification to apply the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure in order to include other persons as victims even when they have not been identified and individualized previously by this Court, by the Inter-American Commission or by the representatives (supra para. 57). To this end, the Court assesses positively the State’s initiative to create the “Single List of the Victims and Next of Kin of the Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote.” Accordingly, this Court establishes that the State must continue with the full implementation of the “Single List of the Victims and Next of Kin of the Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote”; to this end, it must adopt the necessary measures to ensure its sustainability and the budgetary allocation to guarantee its effective operation. In addition, the Court considers it pertinent that, within one year of notification of this Judgment, the State present the results of the identification of the victims who were executed, the surviving victims, the next of kin of the executed victims, and the victims forcibly displaced of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, conducted within the framework of the “Single List of the Victims and Next of Kin of the Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote,” so that these persons may request and receive the corresponding reparation in the terms of th[e] Judgment. 311. The foregoing does not impede or exclude the possibility that, when the one-year time frame has expired, the process of identifying the victims continue, and that any new victims be added to the “Single List of the Victims and Next of Kin of the Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote,” and be considered beneficiaries of the reparations established in this Judgment to be made by the State, when they submit this request to the Salvadoran authorities, outside the established time frame. The State must provide information to the Court about the persons who have requested reparations in the context of the said mechanism. To this end, the Court will make the pertinent assessment in the exercise of its authority to monitor th[e] Judgment. 33. Correlatively, the second operative paragraph of the Judgment orders that: 2. The State must continue to implement fully the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Grave Violations of Human Rights during the Massacre of El Mozote” and adopt the necessary measures to ensure its permanence and the budgetary allocation for its effective functioning, in accordance with paragraphs 310 and 311 of th[e] Judgment. 34. In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that, in addition to the shortcomings in the lists of presumed victims provided (supra para. 26), the lists presented by the Commission failed to relate each of the persons listed to the evidence of their 11