88 family members of the disappeared victims (supra para. 285). Also, as indicated by the State, the Institute of Legal Medicine reported on the “limited […] possibilities of identifying the human skeletal remains,” due to the lack of samples from family members with whom to compare the four DNA profiles obtained from the skeletal remains, the small sample of skeletal remains obtained at the scene of the events and their poor state of preservation (supra para. 293). 295. It is a just expectation of the next of kin of the victims of forced disappearances that their whereabouts should be identified or their remains found so that their identity can be determined with certainty. This constitutes a measure of reparation and, therefore, generates a correlative duty for the State to satisfy it. 339 In turn, this allows the next of kin to alleviate the anguish and suffering caused by such uncertainty. 340 Receiving the body of a person who has been forcibly disappeared is of the utmost importance for their next of kin, because it allows them to bury him or her according to their beliefs, and to close the mourning process that they have experienced throughout these years. 341 In addition, the Court considers that the remains provide evidence of what happened and, together with the place where they are found, can provide valuable information about the perpetrators of the violations and the institution to which they belonged, 342 particularly when they are State agents. 343 296. The Court appreciates the willingness expressed by Peru to carry out the necessary actions for the identification of the victims and considers this an important step toward reparation in this case. In the specific circumstances surrounding the facts of this case, the Court considers that the State must initiate, in a systematic, rigorous and serious manner, and with adequate human and financial resources, the necessary actions for the exhumation and the identification of the human remains located in the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine, a site that must be protected for their preservation. To this end, the State must use all necessary technical and scientific means available, taking into account the relevant national and international standards on the matter, 344 and must endeavor to conclude all the necessary exhumations within one year of notification of this judgment. For the purposes of these procedures, the State must establish a communication strategy with the next of kin to agree on a framework for coordinated action to ensure their participation, knowledge and presence. 297. Should the mortal remains be found, they must be delivered to the next of kin, after genetic verification of blood relationship, as soon as possible and at no cost. In addition, the State must cover funeral expenses, if applicable, by mutual agreement with the next of kin.345 As for the possibilities of identifying the human skeletal remains being limited (supra para. 293), the Court recalls that international standards require that the remains be handed over when the victim is clearly identified, that is, once a positive identification has been obtained. 346 On this point, the Minnesota Protocol of 1991 states that “the body must be identified by reliable Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 69, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 196. 340 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 196. 341 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 245, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 250. 342 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra para. 250. 343 Cf. Case of Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 4 September 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 266, and Case Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 333. 344 As established in the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. 345 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 185, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 199. 346 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 318, and Case Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 116. 339