44 118. Based on the aforementioned, the Court concludes that there is no controversy regarding the facts of the enforced disappearance of the members of the Guerrilha do Araguaia nor of the State’s responsibility in this regard. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy regarding the number of victims. The InterAmerican Commission affirmed that there were 70 persons of the Guerrilla whom were victim to enforced disappearance, while the representatives indicated 69 victims.153 On its behalf, the State, via Law No. 9.140/95, recognized its responsibility for the disappearance of 60 alleged victims in the present case,154 and subsequently, in the Report of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons, also recognized as victims, among others, Mr. Antônio Ferreira Pinto and Mr. Pedro Matias de Oliveira (also known as Pedro Carretel),155 who are known as alleged victims in this case. As a consequence, the number of persons recognized domestically as disappeared victims of the Guerrilha do Araguia by Brazil rose to 62 of the 70 persons indicated by the Commission as victims of enforced disappearance before this Court. 119. To the contrary, there are eight persons indicated as alleged victims of enforced disappearance by the Inter-American Commission whom were not recognized domestically by the State as disappeared persons, nor were they recognized in Law No. 9.140/95, nor by the Special Commission. Said persons were peasants of the region of Araguaia and were identified as “Batista,” “Gabriel,” “Joaquinzão,” José de Oliveira, Josias Gonçalves de Sousa, Juarez Rodriguez Coelho, Sabino Alves da Silva, and “Sandoval.” 120. The Court recalls that Law No. 9.140/95 established a procedure for the next of kin to request recognition and the consequential compensation, from the Special Commission, regarding their disappeared or deceased next of kin during the military dictatorship.156 Regarding the eight abovementioned peasants, during its fifteen years of operation, the Special Commission received only one request for recognition of responsibility in regard to “Joaquinzão” (or Joaquim de Sousa). On May 31, 2005, the Special Commission denied this request, among other reasons, given doubts it had regarding the identity of the alleged victim.157 On the other hand, there was not a request made by the next of kin of the other abovementioned peasants for recognition before the Special Commission. Therefore, the Special Commission did not rule on the nature of the victims nor did it include them in the list of disappeared persons of the Guerrilha do Araguaia.158 Neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives provided evidence of them. The Court does not count on information regarding the existence or identity of the next of kin of these alleged victims. Based on the aforementioned, the Inter-American Court does not have sufficient evidentiary 153 The representatives did not consider Mr. Josias Gonçalves de Souza as an alleged victim of enforced disappearance in the present case. 154 The State also recognized its responsibility for the enforced disappearance of Mrs. Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva, whose bodily remains were identified subsequent to said acknowledgment. In this sense, Mrs. Petit da Silva is not considered disappeared but rather executed extrajudicially (supra note 148). Cf. Law No. 9.140/95, Annex I, supra note 87, folios 5 to 15. 155 Cf. Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folio 785. 156 Cf. Law No. 9.140/95, supra note 87, Article 7. 157 Cf. Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folio 5830. In its final written arguments, the State reported that the case of “Joaquinzão” before the Special Commission was reopened in 2009 and is newly under analysis. In the case that he is recognized as a disapeared person, compensation would be provided for his next of kin (case file on the merits, tome IX, folio 8632). 158 Cf. Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folios 5821, 5822, 5828, 5833 and 5834.