98 b) c) d) of the evidence included in the case file, the Court has verified that the nautopsy protocol that the intervener called “N.N. Protocol 2007, (male) died burned”, actually corresponds to the autopsy protocol of Mr. Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega, which is Nº 2007. Said document states that the diagnosis was “due to: bullets from firearms/ Carbonization”. Said male is included within the 41 deceased identified and listed both by the Commission and the intervener. Likewise, from the testimonial and documentary evidence provided it could be concluded that the body of this man was never handed over to his next of kin; regarding that argued by the intervener, in the sense that there were 43 “unidentified prisoners”, it is necessary to calirfy that the evidence on which the intervener based their addition to her list of deceased are statements of other surviving inmates, in which they recount having seen inmates die, without identifying them. In this sense, the Court notes that these recounts could refer to the way in which the people who are already identified died; and it can not be concluded from the evidence included in the case file that there are currently bodies of victims that have not been identified. 251. Therefore, there is doubt regarding compliance by the State of the duty to identify all the inmates that died and hand over the remains to their next of kin, and it has been proven that in the case of the inmate Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega they were not handed over. With regard to the remains of the latter the Tribunal will decide the corresponding measure in the chapter on Reparations (infra para. 442). Likewise, this Tribuna considers that the State must adopt all the necessary measures to ensure that all inmates that died as a consequence of the attack be identified and their remains be handed over to their next of kin, pursuant with its domestic legislation. If the other inmates that died are identified, their next of kin may present the corresponding claims within the domestic courts. 252. According to the acknowledgment of partial responsibility made by the State and the considerations of the previous paragraphs, Peru is responsible for the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of the 41 dead inmates that have been identified, whose names have been included in Appendix 1 of victims of the present Judgment that for these effects forms part of the same. * * * Obligation to effectively investigate the facts 253. The Court has established that in order to effectively guarantee the rights to life and integrity it is necessary to comply with the obligation to investigate the infringement of the same, which derives from Article 1(1) of the Convention along with the substative right that must be protected or guaranteed.140 140 Cfr. Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 119; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 147; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 297; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 92.