the two proceedings are not the same. In particular, it is clear that a request for protection filed before the Commission refers to a potential situation of actual risk that could be affecting a person or a group of persons, while a contentious proceeding before this Court is related to an alleged violation of human rights of a persons or group of persons that occurred in the past. Therefore, there is no justified reason why the beneficiaries of precautionary measures decided by the Commission should be the same person as the presumed victims of a contentious case being considered by the Court. Consequently, the Court finds that this argument of the State is not relevant to determine the list of victims in this case 424. Regarding the crosscheck with the National Civil Registry, two clarifications are required. First, the Court notes that the fact that a person does not appear in the Registry cannot lead to the conclusions that they do not exist. In particular, the State did not indicate whether the birth of all those born in Colombia is registered and/or they have a citizenship card. In addition, the Court notes that several names of presumed victims appear written in different ways in the documents that were submitted to this Court; thus it is possible that the Registry may contain names written differently, which would lead to erroneous results as regards whether or not certain presumed victims “exist.” Second, the 16 persons whose identity cards appear to have been cancelled due to their decease will not be excluded either, because the State has not proved that they died before February 28, 1997, so that, if compensation is declared in their favor, those who are considered their heirs under domestic law would be legitimized to reclaim this, unless it is proved that the decedent died before the facts. Consequently, the Court finds that this argument of the State is not relevant to determine the list of victims in the case. 425. Regarding the persons who were born after the return to the Peace Communities in the Cacarica River basin, although it may be presumed that they could be affected because they were born in a situation of displacement of their parents or owing to the living conditions that they have faced, it is also true that they were not victims of the forced displacement caused by the paramilitary incursions, or of the conditions of displacement in Turbo, Bocas de Atrato or Panama. Accordingly, the 12 persons who were born during the return are excluded from the list of victims forwarded by the representatives. 426. The Court also notes that, according to the State, only 158 persons appear in the Central Registry for the Displaced Population (RUPD), and not the others included on the list of victims. However, as the Court has indicated in other cases, and as the Colombian Constitutional Court has acknowledged, “[s]ince forced displacement is a de facto situation, there is no need to be declared a displaced person by any public or private entity as an essential requirement to acquire that status. The fact that the Government has established a procedure to include those displaced on a national Registry for the Displaced Population, which regulates access to the assistance that has been established (immediate aid, emergency humanitarian aid, and programs for return, resettlement or relocation), is a different matter; but this mechanism is not intended to unduly determine a de facto situation.”680 427. Regarding the foregoing, as noted in a recent order on monitoring compliance with the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia,681 the Colombian Constitutional Court, in its Judgment T-367 of May 11, 2010, considered that certain State entities had violated the fundamental rights to a decent life and to justice, by requiring the victims of the Ituango massacres to be registered in the Information System for the Displaced Population (SIPOD) as a requirement prior to acceding to some of the measures of reparation (above all, housing, security, and medical services) ordered by the Court in their 680 Cf. Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-327 of 2001. See also: Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-468-06; Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-211/10; Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T367/10 (mentioned in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Monitoring compliance with judgment, Order of May 21, 2013), and Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments T-582/11 and T-1000/12. 681 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of May 21, 2013, considering paragraphs 28 to 31. 134