16 63. It has proved extremely difficult to identify the children, spouses, and, in some cases, the ascendants of the victims in this case. These are all members of a tribe that lives in the jungle, in the interior of Suriname, and speaks only its own native tongue. Marriages and births have in many cases not been registered. In those cases where they have, sufficient data have not been provided to fully document the relationship between persons. The matter of identification becomes even more complex in a community which practices polygamy. 64. In its observations, Suriname has presented a general critique of the Commission’s brief as regards the evidence it presents. The Government asserts the following: “ [. . .] we need to know, based on rational and certainly verifiable data, specifics on all the victims, insofar as the family members left unprotected are concerned [. . .]” It is true that a person’s identity must, as a general rule, be proved by means of relevant documentation. However, the situation in which the Saramakas find themselves is due in great measure to the fact that the State does not provide sufficient registry offices in the region; consequently, it is unable to issue documentation to all its inhabitants on the basis of the data contained therein. Suriname cannot, therefore, demand proof of the relationship and identity of persons through means that are not available to all of its inhabitants in that region. In addition, Suriname has not here offered to make up for its inaction by providing additional proof as to the identity and relationship of the victims and their successors. In order to clarify the information available on the successors, the Court requested the Commission to provide complementary data about them. Considering the circumstances surrounding the instant case, the Court believes that the evidence supplied is credible and can be admitted. 65. The information provided by the Commission nevertheless contains some discrepancies between the names of the victims and the way these appeared in the petition (see supra, para. 4). Thus, Deede-Manoe Aloeboetoe appears in the petition as Dedemanu Aloeboetoe; this can be explained by the fact that both names are pronounced in the same way. The name of Bernard Tiopo appears in the petition as Beri Tiopo, which was one of his nicknames or sobriquets, for he was known as Beri or Finsié. There has also been some confusion as to the name of Indie Hendrik Banai, who originally appeared as Martin Indisie Banai, though his identification has never been questioned. As for a victim who was listed in the petition as John Amoida, he was a son of Pagai Amoida and was known as Asipee Adame. His identification also presented no questions. 66. In accordance with the foregoing, it has been possible to establish a list of the successors of the victims. That list reflects the situation at the time of the killings. Consequently, it includes persons who have since died and excludes those spouses who at the time were divorced from the victims. Daison Aloeboetoe his wives: Wenke Asodanoe his children: Podini Asodanoe Maradona Asodanoe