21. Previously, the Commission noted that the State and the representatives made reference to the provisional allocation of a piece of land to the members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community who are displaced in Bogota, as well as the lack of an agreement regarding the development of a viable project in said land. In addition, it emphasized the inconsistencies in the observance of the Protocol related to the guidance of the return or relocation processes of the displaced population. The Commission also mentioned that the information presented by the State regarding the measures adopted in favor of the “Kankuamo population” to return to the municipalities of Rio Seco and Murillo, was incomplete. In the brief presented before the public hearing was held (supra Having Seen clause **), it mentioned that it reiterated “the need to have detailed information on the measures adopted in order to implement the security conditions necessary for the freedom of movement of the People, to alleviate the situation and make its return safe, avoiding new displacements. At the public hearing, the Commission expressed that “the cause of the displacement of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community [was] the same that [it had] informed in 2004” and that, at [that] moment, there was information about the fact that 400 families of the Kankuamo Indigenous People remain displaced in several cities of Colombia”. Therefore, it mentioned that “the progress has not been enough”. 22. The Court recalls that it ordered the State “to continue guaranteeing the conditions of security necessary to respect the right to freedom of movement of the people of the Kankuamo community, as well as of those who have been forced to displace to other regions in order to return to their homes, if they wish so”. In this respect, the Court notes that, mainly, the representatives indicated that some members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community have returned to the communities of Murillo and Rio Seco, and that there have been other individual returns, but that the latter was achieved without the “State’s escort” and the due guarantees. However, the representatives did not provide further evidence regarding the way in which such returns took place and, on the contrary, the State informed on such returns as part of the actions it has taken in view of the measures adopted. Moreover, the parties have referred to the alleged situation of members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community who are displaced in the city of Bogota and the alleged actions adopted to address this situation. However, the Tribunal emphasizes that it does not form part of the object of these provisional measures, since the order issued by the Court refers only to guaranteeing the conditions so that the displaced people may return to their ancestral territory. The representatives also referred to other type of measures that they consider the State should adopt, such as “socio-economic stability”, “humanitarian aid” and “population registry” (SUR). Nevertheless, the Court considers that the foregoing goes beyond the purpose of the provisional measures. 23. From the information furnished by the parties, the Court also notes that the situation reported in the year 2004 that affected the freedom of movement of the members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Communities does not exist in the same proportion. In addition, though the Tribunal verifies that there is still a situation of displacement of several members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community, said situation could not be totally remedied by the mechanism of provisional measures, as it was intended by the Commission and the representatives. In this respect, the Court notes that the State has made important efforts to address this problem and that it has adopted different material measures or of other nature to that effect. D. Continue allowing the participation of the beneficiaries in the planning and implementation of the protective measures and to, in general, keep them informed on the progress of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court (operative paragraph four of the Order of April 3, 2009). 11