existence or to the human rights violation alleged against them. Furthermore, the representatives’ lists, even though they referred to the documentation that proved their existence – for example, certificate of birth or baptism – did not provide a reference to the evidence where this document appeared and did not include any reference to the evidence of the human rights violation alleged to the detriment of each of these persons. Consequently, and also as a result of the scale of the massacres and the time that has elapsed since they were perpetrated, numerous difficulties arose in this case in relation to the individualization, identification and determination of the executed victims, surviving victims, next of kin of executed victims, and forcibly displaced victims. Given this situation, the Court was forced to make a detailed and laborious examination of the evidence provided by the Commission and the representatives in order to assemble the necessary evidence to prove the existence and identity and, on this basis, the precise identification of the victims who were executed, survived, next of kin, and forcibly displaced, as well as to consider proved that they had suffered some kind of human rights violation in the context of the massacres in the village of El Mozote, the canton of La Joya, the villages of Ranchería, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, the canton of Cerro Pando, and a cave on Cerro Ortiz. After declaring the human rights violations, the Court proceeded to establish the corresponding reparations, considering that “injured party” corresponded to those persons who had been adequately identified as a victim of one of the violations that had been declared and, to this end, it took into account the evidence provided up until that time. 21 The persons whose names appear in Annexes “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” of the Judgment comply with the foregoing presumption. 35. In this regard, the Court noted in the Judgment that it had been able “to determine a number of victims that is much lower than those on the list provided,” and that the State itself had provided a list of 936 individualized victims. In addition, the Court included as Annex “E” to the Judgment a list of persons regarding whom there were indications as to their possible status as presumed victims, even though they were not on the lists provided. 22 Given the possible existence of other victims and next of kin who, in the terms of the Judgment, could not be adequately identified in these international proceedings, the Court adopted provisions, contained in paragraphs 310 and 311, for the clear determination of other persons who should also be considered victims and, as appropriate, beneficiaries of the reparations. 36. It is the Court’s opinion that a ruling, whatever this may be, must be interpreted systematically; in other words, taking into account its complete content. Furthermore, its considerations or decisions should not be understood in isolation from the rest of the Judgment. Accordingly, based on a systematic reading of the Judgment, it is possible to make an interpretation that manages to correlate its considerations and to harmonize them with the operative paragraphs. Thus, the delimitation of the seven places specified in the Judgment should not be understood as contradictory to other parts thereof that extend the measures of reparation to persons who, in the future, may be identified and individualized through the full implementation of the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote.” Consequently, the Court clarifies, by interpretation, on the basis of paragraphs 310 and 311 and the second operative paragraph of the Judgment, that the State’s obligation concerning the identification of the executed victims, surviving victims, next of kin of the executed victims, and those forcibly displaced during the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, under the said Single List of Victims, permits the inclusion of persons even if the events of the 21 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, paras. 51 to 53, 55 and 306. 22 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 57. 12