45 scale of the human slaughter, and v) the fear characteristic of that period and mistakes in the civil records. 197. The Commission would begin by observing that the present case occurred within a context of widespread violence caused by the internal armed conflict that Guatemala endured; furthermore, the facts of this case happened over thirty years ago. Secondly, another important consideration is the modus operandi of the executions and forced disappearances perpetrated by the Army and its collaborators, their purpose being to cover up what transpired and to conceal the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. 198. Thirdly, another factor for the IACHR to consider are the differences between the names of the alleged victims in Mayan –the mother tongue of the alleged victims- and the translation of those names into Spanish.292 Furthermore, while many indigenous persons kept their Maya names, when those names are entered into the Civil Register the public authorities render them as close to Spanish as possible, which is why the differences occur. 199. Using the information submitted by the parties, the Commission has made every effort to fully identify every alleged victim, taking into account the name(s) registered on the birth certificates, the death certificates or even in the complaints filed and statements given by family members. The IACHR observes that only one of the 86 alleged victims in this case has supposedly not been fully identified (see infra paragraph 128). However, the IACHR must point out that from the facts established, this person has been identified both by family members and in the exhumation report prepared by the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation. 200. The Commission observes that the State did not object to this person’s inclusion among the alleged victims. Here, the Court itself has recognized that given “the nature of the facts, and the time that has passed,” it is only “reasonable that the identification and individualization of each presumed victim is complex.”293 Given these considerations, the Commission is including the person in question in the analysis that follows. 1.2. Concerning the inclusion of six persons who were not included by name in the admissibility report 201. As a result of the facts established, the Commission identified six persons not included by name in the admissibility report. They were: Manuel de Jesús Alarcón Morente, María Concepción Xitumul Xitumul, Máxima Emiliana García Valey, Miguel Chen Tahuico, Napoléon García de Paz, and a baby girl between 0 and 3 months old, whose name is unknown. 202. The Commission will include these individuals in its examination of the law, inasmuch as they were affected by the very same core events included in the admissibility report. The Commission must clarify that the names of Manuel de Jesús Alarcón Morente, and María Concepción Xitumul 292 For example, at the hearings held during the criminal proceedings prosecuted against Ríos Montt and in other proceedings related to the events that transpired during the armed conflict, many indigenous witnesses underscored the difference between their original name in their Mayan language and their name in “cashlan.” For more information, see [in Spanish]: Annex 28. http://www.prensalibre.com/revista_d/APELLIDO_0_872313072.html 293 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, par. 51.