Interviews were organized to gather pre-mortem information, and this was compared in the laboratory a posteriori. Unfortunately, no testimonial evidence was available to compare the results in order to identify the skeletons recovered from the exhumations performed in 2004.376 240. Regarding the exhumations over the 2000-2004 period, “many victims were identified competently and their remains returned to the direct family or to the community (in the case of those who were not identified) so that they could conduct their Christian burial”377 (supra para. 234). 241. On the thirteenth anniversary of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, on November 23, 1994, Juan Bautista Márquez, Raquel Romero widow of Claros, and Rufina Amaya asked the trial judge to return the osseous remains exhumed at the sites in the village of El Mozote, in order to give them Christian burial and to commemorate the suffering of those who died during the massacre with religious ceremonies.378 In response, the judge authorized the return of the human remains found at Sites 1, 2 and 3, known as “The Convent”, “house of Sofía Márquez” and “house of Benita Díaz.”379 Subsequently, the evidence reveals that, on several occasions, the trial judge ordered the return of the osseous remains found during the different exhumations performed at the request of their next of kin and/or of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado.380 B. The obligation to investigate the facts of this case 242. The Court has established that, in keeping with the American Convention on Human Rights, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).381 The Court has also indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next 376 Cf. Summary of forensic work prepared by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF), Case of El Mozote, April-June 2000 (evidence file, tome VI, annex 27 to the submission of the case, folio 4124); Report of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) on the exhumation work performed in 2001 (evidence file, tome VI, annex 28 to the submission of the case, folios 4415 to 4416); Final report of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) on the forensic investigations in the case of El Mozote in 2003 (evidence file, tome VII, annex 29 to the submission of the case, folio 5023), and Final report of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) on the forensic investigations in the case of El Mozote in 2004 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3995). 377 Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador, El Mozote. Lucha por la verdad y la justicia: Masacre a la Inocencia, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2008, p. 416 (evidence file, tome VIII, annex II to the pleading and motions brief, folio 5498). 378 Cf. Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador, El Mozote. Lucha por la verdad y la justicia: Masacre a la Inocencia, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2008, pp. 276 to 277 (evidence file, tome VIII, annex II to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 5428), and Brief of November 23, 1994, filed before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 3620 to 3623). 379 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on November 29, 1994 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3624). 380 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on August 31, 2000 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3704); Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on December 8, 2000 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3725); Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on June 22, 2000 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3774); Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on June 22, 2000 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3777); Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera of December 7, 2001 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3879); Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on December 12, 2003 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 3931), and Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on December 10, 2004 (evidence file, tome VI, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 4004). 381 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 191. 79