the Commission, the same was true of the victims of some violations that certainly occurred; however, owing to their nature and the absolute absence of State activity to investigate the events for more than a decade, there was no individualized list of people. In addition, during the public hearing and in its final written observations, the Commission reiterated the particular circumstances that hindered the identification of the victims, and recalled that Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes the possibility for the Commission to provide an explanation when it is not possible to identify all the victims in a case; for example, because it involves violations on a massive scale. It also emphasized the importance that the State establish a mechanism to identify victims who were executed, next of kin, and survivors, in coordination with and as a complement to the efforts already made by the representatives, “[b]ecause the reparations are closely connected to the identification of the victims.” 44. Meanwhile, with a brief of May 23, 2011, the representatives forwarded powers of attorney, as well as “updated lists of the victims of the case” (supra footnote 3). Subsequently, with their pleadings and motions brief of August 12, 2011, they presented updated “lists of victims” and referred to the application of Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure in this case. In addition, with their brief with final arguments of May 23, 2012, they again forwarded “updated lists of victims” and asked the Court to take a flexible approach with regard to the identification of the victims. In this regard, they indicated that, in the instant case, the State’s acts and omissions had created a series of obstacles that had made it impossible to identify all the victims. According to the representatives, the only lists of victims that exist to date were prepared by the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador; however, “this [was] a list that, owing to its nature, [could] have names added or removed,” and this would explain why the lists they had presented to the Court were slightly different from those presented by the Commission as annexes to its report on merits 177/10. In this regard, they asked the Court to order the State to identify all the executed victims and survivors of the massacres and their next of kin. Based on the foregoing and without prejudice to the Court considering as victims of the events the persons identified in the lists they had submitted, the representatives asked the Court to leave the possibility open for those individuals who the State identifies to be included as victims and, consequently, as beneficiaries of the reparations. 45. During the public hearing, the Court asked the Commission, first, to clarify whether all the women who appear as victims of execution should also be understood to have been victims of rape and, second, how the forced disappearance of the Ramirez Mejia girls, who were the victims of a case that this Court has decided previously, could be reconciled with the information presented by the Commission in the instant case in which they appear as victims of extrajudicial execution. The Court also asked the Commission and the representatives, as a preliminary element, to specify on their lists of next of kin and survivors whether the places indicated on those lists signify that those survivors were in one of the places where the massacres occurred as established in the Commission’s merits report and in the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief; secondly, whether there was any information that could clarify the identity of the individuals who were victims of the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, or if this refers to an issue that should be left pending, to be completed on the list of victims. Lastly, the Court asked the representatives to explain the meaning of the term “location” that appeared on their lists of victims; in other words, whether the term refers to the origin of the victims, or to the place where they were presumably executed. 46. In response, the Commission clarified that, regarding the alleged rape “not all the women identified in the merits report were victims of that type of abuse.” In this regard, it explained that the Commission’s analysis was based on testimonial statements, and this was confirmed in the Report of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado and the Report of the Truth Commission, “the best possible determination of the victims being that, at least, it was certain […] that the victims were the youngest women in the context of the first massacre.” However, when ruling on the merits “it did not have the name of any victim of this situation”; therefore, “in the understanding […] that it was the State’s obligation to identify the victims of all the violations […], the Commission found it necessary to declare the rape as a fact that was proved in the case file and, as one of its specific recommendations, leave the State to identify [the] victims.” Regarding the 16