presumed victims supposedly executed during the Xococ, Pacoxom, Los Encuentros and Agua Fría massacres (infra paras. 70 to 81). In particular, the Commission’s lists include more people than those of the representatives. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the Court noted that the Commission had presented a list of 17 individuals who were children in 1982 and who were presumably subjected to slavery. These individuals were recognized as victims by the State in its answering brief. The list submitted by the Commission includes the name of Juan Burrero; however, this individual does not appear on the list of children supposedly subjected to slavery submitted by the representatives. The Commission did not present evidence on the identity or possible existence of Juan Burrero. Meanwhile, the representatives’ list of children supposedly subjected to acts of slavery contains two names, Juan Osorio Alvarado and Bernarda Lajuj Osorio, that do not appear on the Commission’s respective list and, consequently, they were not recognized as victims by the State. In this regard, the Court asked the Commission and the representatives, when submitting their final written observations and arguments, respectively, to clarify these situations and, as appropriate, to present the corresponding evidence that would allow verification of the identity of the presumed victims. 45. Following the public hearing in this case, as already mentioned in this Judgment (supra paras. 8 and 10), at the request of the President of the Court, the Inter-American Commission again submitted the list of presumed victims organized by family unit. In this regard, in its final written arguments, the State referred to a series of supposed inconsistencies between the list of February 22, 2011, and the list of presumed victims organized by family unit. In general, the State alleged that the total number of presumed victims was not the same on the two lists; that there were differences in the names of some of the presumed victims; that some of them were identified as executed but, at the same time, as survivors, or vice versa; that the surnames of some of the presumed victims do not match the surnames of their supposed next of kin, or that the family relationship is not indicated, and that individuals with the same names appear in several family units, with no indication of whether they are duplications or different persons, which could lead to double reparation. 46. Also, in their final written arguments, the representatives introduced a series of corrections in the list of presumed victims they had submitted with their pleadings and motions brief. Basically, the representatives corrected the names of three presumed victims; withdrew twelve presumed victims because, following efforts to confirm their identity, “it was determined that there was no document or person who could substantiate and prove [their] existence,” and added three presumed victims of whom they were previously unaware. The representatives also clarified that “Juan Burrero” is “Juan Osorio Alvarado,” and that, in the community, he was known more by the former name owing to his father's surname; thus, this is one and the same person. In addition, they clarified that Bernarda Lajuj Osorio is a “survivor” of the alleged Los Encuentros massacre perpetrated on May 14, 1982 (supra para. 80). Lastly, the representatives forwarded a final list of presumed victims. They indicated that these individuals had been identified by birth and death certificates and by the testimony of family members, acquaintances or individuals who were able to confirm their existence, all before notary public. In this regard, the State asked the Court to declare its acknowledgement of international responsibility null and void for the violation of the rights established in Articles 6 and 17 of the American Convention (supra para. 17(d)) to the detriment of “the presumed victims Juan Burrero and, as applicable, to Juan Osorio Alvarado,” because the latter was not a minor at the time of the facts. In addition, the State expressed its “profound concern owing to the numerous inconsistencies in the identification of the presumed victims, next of kin, and survivors in this case,” so that “it was inadmissible that an attempt had been made to include new presumed victims without having full certainty about the names included on the different lists provided.” In 19