93 (a) “The candidates for the positions of mayors, deputy mayors and councilors presented by the regional indigenous political party” YATAMA for the municipal elections of November 2000 in the RAAN and the RAAS, are the injured parties; (b) “The representatives have advised the Court that the final list of victims is the result of consultations with the leaders and members of YATAMA.” These consultations “are the most appropriate source for drawing up the final lists, particularly in the RAAS”; and (c) The list of 59 candidates in the RAAN “results from information certified by the State,” which has appropriate probative value. Regarding the two people who were substituted in the RAAS, the injured parties “are in a position to explain why they consider that, although they were substitutes, they are also [alleged] victims.” 235. Arguments of the representatives of the victims (a) The “candidates presented by the YATAMA indigenous organization” who were excluded from the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, have the right to reparation; (b) The State “has violated the political rights of the indigenous communities of the Atlantic Coast” and, consequently the reparations should include the members of these communities who were prevented from voting for the candidates they had previously selected, and being represented by them; (c) On several occasions, they requested the Supreme Electoral Council to “provide them with copies of the official lists of candidates.” The State “refused to provide the list of candidates presented by YATAMA in the […] RAAS”; (d) The list for the RAAS “includes more than one candidate for each elected office[, because ...] they were unable to obtain the official lists of candidates.” “These inconsistencies [...] can be clarified when the State presents the official lists”; and (e) In cases in which the alleged victims are not individualized and the Court is unable to establish any compensation for them, the Court has established reparations for all the members of the indigenous communities affected by the facts of a case. 236. Arguments of the State The State argued that “it does not recognize victims or alleged victims” and, with regard to the fact that “it has not provided facilities for knowing exactly who the alleged victims are [and] for obtaining the official lists, [it indicated that,] in Nicaragua, Article 921 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the legal procedures [for] obtaining the exhibition of documents or movables.” Considerations of the Court