as to ensure that the information and documentation of police investigations on serious human rights violations is kept for a long time and allows for investigations to be carried out and the information to be consulted. Peru did not provide information about the current regulations regarding the conservation of information and documentation. Therefore, the Court considers that this measure is pending compliance and requires the State to submit more information. C. Deliver the remains of the victim Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega to her family members and ensure that all deceased inmates be identified (Operative paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Judgment) C.1) Measures ordered by the Court 31. In operative paragraph 10 and in paragraph 443 of the Judgment, the Court found that the State “must carry out all the actions necessary and adequate to effectively guarantee the delivery [of the remains of victims Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega and his family members], within a 6-month period, thus allowing them to bury the remains however they considered it appropriate.” 38 Similarly, it ordered the State to cover all the expenses generated from the delivery of the victim’s body to their next of kin, as well as the burial expenses that may be incurred. 32. In addition, given that there were doubts about whether Peru met its obligation to identify all deceased inmates and the delivery of their remains to their next of kin, 39 the Court decided in operative paragraph 11 and paragraph 444 of the Judgment, that Peru “must adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that all the inmates that died as a result of the attack be identified and their remains be handed over to their next of kin, pursuant to domestic legislation.” The Court ruled that, “[i]f other deceased inmates were to be identified, their next of kin may make the corresponding claims within domestic legislation.” C.2) Information and observations of the Parties and of the Inter-American Commission 33. In connection with the delivery of the remains of the victim Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega to his next of kin, the State indicated that in the case file “of the preliminary investigation there is information related to [this victim]” which consists of an order issued by the office of the Public Prosecutor addressed to the Second Supraprovincial Court “in which there is a receipt of burial of the body marked with Autopsy No. 2007-1992, removed May 16, 1992 by Mr. Ladislao Alberto Huaman Loayza” without “establishing the type of family relationship” with the victim thereof. In this regard, it stated that Mr. Huaman Loayza has been asked to appear, and that “the widow of [Mr. Aguilar Vega] who is a Civil Party [...] in the criminal proceedings has not provided documentation [ ...] wherein she has requested [...] delivery [of his] remains.” Based on this information, the Peru requested the Court “close this issue.” 34. Regarding the measures necessary to ensure that all inmates that died as a result of the attack be identified and their remains returned to their families, the State indicated, 38 Mr. Mario Francisco Aguilar Vega is listed as one of the 41 deceased identified inmates and it is assumed that the autopsy (No. 2007) concerns him. From the testimonial and documentary evidence provided, it came up that his next of kin had not received his remains. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 251 and 443. 39 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 251. 15