40 described in this case. As will be discussed below, in the wake of the massacres most of the surviving 243 relatives sought refuge elsewhere, including outside El Salvador, in Honduras . This situation prevailed in many cases during the armed conflict, which dragged on for more than a decade. While many people reported the names of their deceased relatives, they could not recall in detail all the members of other entire families that perished. 208. As will be explained below, these difficulties were compounded by the fact that the State waited more than 10 years after the massacres before taking testimony and exhuming the bodies, and those measures were still not completed in 1992. In fact, exhumation was resumed only in 2000, and has still not been concluded. 209. The Commission considers that, because of all these elements, it must in this case adopt flexible criteria for identifying victims, both those who died and the surviving relatives. 210. With respect to the victims who died in the massacres, to date the Commission has the following elements for identification: (i) a list of 765 persons provided by the Tutela Legal in its report 244 published in 1992 ; (ii) some additional names gleaned from the reports of the EAAF on exhumations conducted in 1992, 2000, 2001 and 2003; and (iii) a list of 971 persons provided by the petitioners in their communication of September 24, 2010. These last names come from testimony of surviving relatives taken by that entity in order to locate the places where the mortal remains might be found. The Commission will indicate the source in each section of the analysis. 211. The Commission observes that some of the victims are mentioned more than once, with certain differences of sex, age, name or surname. In these circumstances, the Commission will indicate the alternatives (using “or”). As well, the Commission notes that many persons are identified by their age, sex or family ties, but with no exact name. In these circumstances, when persons are identified at least as members of a family, the Commission will consider them as victims. 212. With respect to the surviving relatives, the Commission has the names of: (i) the persons who made statements before the Second Court of First Instance of San Francisco Gotera during judicial proceedings; (ii) some persons who testified before the EAAF and other authorities during investigations preceding the exhumations of 1992, 2000, 2001 and 2003; and (iii) a partial list of 154 persons supplied by the petitioners in their communication of September 24, 2010. 213. Finally, the Commission observes that all the evidence on the file points to the conclusion that the number of persons who died in the massacres in El Mozote and vicinity, as well as the surviving relatives, exceeds the number of persons who have been identified to date and are considered as victims in this report. As will be indicated in the recommendations, it is up to the Salvadoran State to make all possible efforts to obtain proper identification of the victims of the serious human rights violations declared in this report. It is also the State’s task to provide adequate reparations to all those surviving relatives who can be identified. 214. Similarly, in the case of some violations that are known to have occurred, because of their nature and the State’s failure to investigate them for more than a decade, there is no individualized 243 These facts are detailed in the section on the right to freedom of movement and residence, enshrined in article 22 of the convention. 244 That report reads as follows: “The hundreds of campesinos massacred in El Mozote and other places constituted a population consisting for the most part of children. This was a difficulty in the investigation for determining the identities of all the victims: many of the survivors remembered the names of the adults, but few could remember those of the children. But the problem of identifying the dead was also affected by other variables: first, of course, the time elapsed since the massacre, a full decade, especially because the basis of the investigation is witness testimony, the memory of the survivors. The second variable is the process of forced displacements suffered by the people of northern Morazán since 1980, and during the military operations of the Atlacatl Battalion many of the campesinos gathered in El Mozote spent only a few days in the village, having come from Guacamaya, Tierra Colorada, and other places, seeking refuge from the military. The survivors of El Mozote cannot identify all the displaced persons who died there, entire families that were exterminated were unknown to the survivors. As well, those who could escape the murderers in the villages through which they passed could not name all the dead people they saw.” Tutela Legal, op.cit.