both in the private hearing held in August 2013 and in its report dated September 24, 2013, that this issue should “be declare[ed] partially complied with.” In this regard, Peru stated that "[i]n its Report No. 322-IC-H-DDCV dated September 10, 1992, 41 victims were identified with Autopsy Certificate, the same victims which have been duly identified by the Identification Police Division.” In that regard, it said that “[t]he 41victims were properly identified in accordance with the autopsy protocols of those years.” Regarding the delivery of the bodies to the next of kin, the State said that “there is no evidence in the record [...] about the delivery of the bodies” and that “it will provide additional information in subsequent reports.” Moreover, it also noted that “there have been no requests from the next of kin to deliver the bodies” despite the fact that in 2006 and 2007 “the Supraprovincial Criminal Court [...] summoned by Edict all the next of kin for the purposes of establishing the family relationship with the victims in the criminal proceedings” and to thereby have “opportunity to appear as a civil party in the criminal proceedings.” Finally, it noted that "[m]any of the victims have been buried in the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Lurigancho.” 35. The common intervener Feria Tinta noted that the State reported on the delivery of the remains of Mr. Aguilar Vega to someone named Ladislao Alberto Huaman-Loayza, "without demonstrating that such person has a family relationship with [the victim].” In this regard, the common intervener reiterated that Mrs. Lastenia Caballero, wife of Mr. Aguilar Vega, “pointed out that the person referred to in the State’s report [...] is not her family member and does not know anything about who this is about.” The common intervener considers that, consequently, Peru gave “these remains to the wrong person and not to the next of kin as mandated by the Judgment.” In this regard, the intervener said that it is necessary that the State “report on the efforts made [in order for] the burial place to be identified to proceed in that way with delivery to the next of kin [...] without delay.” The intervener also indicated that “[t]he remains of Santos Genaro Zavaleta have not been delivered [...] to his next of kin.” For its part, the common intervener Cassel made no specific observations on the information presented by the State in the private hearing and in its report of September 24, 2013 in relation to implementing these measures of reparation, although in the brief of October 22, 2013, he stated that Peru’s noncompliance on this issue “is obvious.” 36. The Inter-American Commission considered it important that “the State provide clarification” regarding the delivery of the remains of the victim Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega to his next of kin. Regarding the identification and return of the remains of the deceased inmates to their next of kin, it noted that “regardless of the summons the State made in 2006 and 2007 by way of Edict, no further steps have been taken to deliver the identified remains” and therefore, “the information that is available indicates that this measure has not been complied with.” C.3) Considerations of the Court 37. Regarding the obligation to deliver the remains of the victim Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega to his next of kin, the Court recalls that in its Judgment of 2006 it had established, based, inter alia, on the statements of Lastenia Caballero Mejía, wife of Mr. Aguilar Vega, that his remains had not been returned to his next of kin. 40 In this regard, the State argued in the private hearing in August 2013 that it had complied with the order. As an annex to its report in September of that year, it provided copies of the following relevant documents: 40 251. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 197.55 and 16