42 — Matilde Reyna Morales García, mother of Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, heard of his death through her daughter, Lorena, and the body of her son had not been identified until she went to the morgue. She could only bury him on June 27, 1990. She was pregnant at the time of the facts and feared for her life and that of her other children, although she denied that she had ever been threatened. Furthermore, she asserted that she has not received official information about the case; — Ana María Contreras, mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras, heard about the death of her son about 15 days after it occurred because she went to look for him with a photograph. When she heard, he had been buried as XX; at that time, she began the exhumation process but “she was already suffering from health problems in the head that later began to get worse” (supra, para. 65.a) and could not conclude it. She developed facial paralysis and had to be hospitalized for a year, losing “everything”. She states that she was threatened by an anonymous letter in which she was advised “to leave things be”. She also declared that she was not officially informed about the evolution of the judicial proceedings. — Rosa Carlota Sandoval, mother of Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, heard about what had occurred eight days after the events through the version of two other minors. The file shows that Mrs. Sandoval carried out the necessary exhumation measures, since her son had also been buried as XX, and she was the private prosecutor in the case until she died on July 25, 1991. Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval used to live with his grandmother, Margarita Sandoval Urbina, who also took part in the domestic proceedings. — Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia, mother of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, she heard about the abduction of her son from two children, on June 15. On June 18, 1990 learned from the newspapers that several minors had been found dead and she went to the Identification Office of the National Police Force in order to make the corresponding identification; there is nothing in the proceedings about measures taken by the next of kin of Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes. 173. Furthermore, it is evident that the national authorities did not take any measures to establish the identity of the victims, who remained registered as XX until their next of kin came in person to identify them, even though three of the youths (Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes) had a criminal record in the “criminal archives”. This evident negligence of the State should be added to the fact that the authorities did not make adequate efforts to locate the victims’ immediate next of kin, notify them of their death, deliver the bodies to them and provide them with information on the development of the investigations. All these omissions delayed and, in some cases, denied the next of kin the opportunity to bury the youths according to their traditions, values and beliefs and, therefore, increased their suffering. Added to this is the feeling of insecurity and impotence caused to the next of kin by the failure of the public authorities to fully investigate the corresponding crimes and punish those responsible. —