following coordination with [the representatives] and the victim’s next of kin,” and that the State had the documentation authenticating the payment of the amounts corresponding to the “contract covering all the costs of the construction of a permanent burial niche” and to the “funeral home.” 9. First, the Court recalls that, in the proceedings on merits, it had found it proved that, during the investigation by the Office of the Special Provincial Prosecutor of Lima, a statement had been obtained from an individual who had taken advantage of the Law on Effective Collaboration and who had testified that he had witnessed how the disappearance and execution of Santiago Gómez Palomino occurred and had indicated the place where the remains were buried in the La Chira beach. 5 The measures taken in 2003 had been unsuccessful and, in its last Order of July 5, 2011, the Court had noted that it had received no information on subsequent measures. 6 Consequently, the recent information concerning the discovery in the La Chira beach, Chorrillos, of the mortal remains of a person, which might correspond to Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino, and which were handed over to his next of kin for burial, constitutes a significant step forward in compliance with this measure of reparation. The State advised that this discovery was made in the context of the process of effective collaboration, without providing further information to the Court on the said process, or a copy of the record of the measures taken in the search for the said remains and the process of finding and identifying them. 10. In this regard, the Court recalls that international standards require that the return of the remains should take place when the victim has been clearly identified; in other words, once positive identification has been obtained. 7 On this point, the Minnesota Protocol establishes that “the body must be identified by reliable witnesses and other objective methods.” 8 The Court recognizes that, owing to the specific circumstances of a case, it is possible that the identification of the mortal remains and their return cannot be substantiated by even one scientific method, 9 and the only practical option in such cases is identification by recognition of the remains by the next of kin or friends of the disappeared person, as well as by comparing data from the biological profile (sex, age, height), the individual characteristics (old injuries, birth defects, tattoos and dental records), and the personal objects and documents carried. Thus the International Committee of the Red Cross has considered that visual methods should be used “as the sole means of identification only 5 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paras. 54.14 and 54.15. 6 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, fourteenth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 318, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 116. 8 United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol). UN Doc E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 9 The International Committee of the Red Cross has recognized as scientific methods: (a) matching post mortem and ante mortem dental radiographs; (b) matching post mortem and ante mortem fingerprints; (c) matching DNA samples from the human remains with reference samples, and (d) matching other unique identifiers, such as unique physical or medical traits, including skeletal radiographs, and numbered surgical implants/ prostheses. In addition, it has indicated that each of these methods, “which are part of ante-mortem and post mortem data collection, can conclude an identification with a high degree of confidence that would be considered beyond reasonable doubt in most legal contexts.” ICRC. Missing People, DNA analysis and identification of human remains: A guide to best practice in armed conflicts and other situations of armed violence. 2009, p. 12. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_4010.pdf. 5