89 witnesses and other objective methods.”347 The Court recognizes that, due to the specific circumstances of a case, it is possible that the identification and delivery of mortal remains cannot be supported by at least one scientific method 348 and that the only practical option in such cases is identification through the recognition of the remains by relatives or acquaintances of the missing person, as well as a comparison of data from their biological profile (sex, age, height), their individual characteristics (old injuries, congenital defects, tattoos and dental features), and their personal items and documents. In this regard, the International Committee of the Red Cross has considered that visual or customary methods “should be used as the sole means of identification only when the bodies are not decomposed or mutilated, and when there is a well-founded idea of the victim’s identity, such as when the killing and burial of an individual has been witnessed.” 349 298. Thus, for example, in the context of monitoring compliance with judgment in the case Gómez Palomino v. Peru, which also concerned a forced disappearance, the Court considered that, despite the fact that a DNA test–or, as the case may be, its result- the location and identification of the remains occurred based on the statements of an effective witness, the recognition of the clothes the victims was wearing at the time of his detention, as well as a bone malformation in one of the lower limbs. The next of kin and their representatives also considered that the identification made by traditional methods was “valid and sufficient.” 350 299. In order to make the eventual location, identification and delivery of the remains to the next of kin effective and viable, this Court orders the State, as it has done in other cases, 351 to communicate in writing with the representatives of the victims about the process of identification and delivery of the victims’ remains and, if necessary, request their collaboration for the pertinent purposes. Copies of said communications shall be submitted to the Court so that they may be considered at the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment. Should a dispute arise between the parties as to the manner in which this measure should be implemented by the State, the Court considers, as it has done previously, 352 that the proper implementation of the reparation measures will be assessed during the stage of monitoring compliance with the judgment. Thus, the Court will evaluate in due course any information and observations that the parties may submit in this regard during this stage. 347 United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol). DOC E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 348 The International Committee of the Red Cross has recognized the following as scientific or objective means: a) matching post-mortem and ante-mortem dental radiographs; b) matching post-mortem and ante-mortem fingerprints; c) matching DNA samples from human remains with reference samples, and d) matching other unique identifiers, such as unique physical or medical traits, including skeletal radiographs, and numbered surgical implants or prostheses. It has also stated that these means, “which are part of ante-mortem and postmortem data collection, can conclude an identification with a high degree of confidence that would be considered beyond reasonable doubt in most legal contexts.” Cf. ICRC. Missing People: DNA Analysis and Identification of Human Remains: A guide to best practice in armed conflicts and other situations of armed violence. 2009, p. 12. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/spa/assets/files/other/icrc_003_4010.pdf 349 Cf. ICRC. Missing People: DNA Analysis and Identification of Human Remains: A guide to best practice in armed conflicts and other situations of armed violence. 2009, p. 10. 350 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 13, 2013, twelfth considering paragraph. 351 Cf. Mutatis mutandi, Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 249, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, para. 334. 352 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 26, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 19 August 2013. Series C No. 264, para. 38.