5 10. The Commission noted that "the State has offered no systematic information relating to investigations linked to this case, the means used and results achieved to determine if, subsequent to the issuance of the Judgment of the Court, the proceedings [are] sufficient to ensure effective access to justice." 11. The Presidency notes that more than 15 years after the events of the massacres in La Granja and El Aro, in the town of Ituango, and more than four years after the issuance of the Judgment, the information submitted by the State does not clearly show efforts to advance with the investigation into the facts and identify those responsible for serious violations of human rights in relation to those events. 12. As a result, it is necessary that the State provide updated, detailed and complete information on all the actions taken as part of investigations in the domestic legal system into the facts of the massacre of El Aro and La Granja. The State must include the presentation of a copy of the appropriate diligences so taken, information on the current state and scope of the investigation, access that victims and their next-of-kin have to information produced in proceedings, and the measures taken and planned to protect those involved, witnesses and justice operators. a) Regarding operative paragraph sixteen of the Judgment 13. Regarding the State's obligation to provide the adequate treatment required by the next-of-kin of victims executed in the facts of this case, the Presidency recalls that the Court, with regard to this reparation measure, was informed by the State, representatives of victims and the Inter-American Commission, as part of the private hearing on monitoring compliance conducted in conjunction with seven other cases (supra Having Seen 5 and 6). 14. The President reminds that through the Order of April 29, 2010 ( supra Having Seen 5) it convened all the parties from different cases to a private hearing on monitoring compliance with reparation measures on medical and psychological care ordered in eight Colombian cases. As a result, the President considers that operative paragraph eighteen of the Judgment should be monitored through the aforementioned combined monitoring of compliance, even though, if necessary, relevant and urgent information is received regarding the victims in this case from the State, representatives and the Commission. c) Regarding operative paragraph seventeen of the Judgment 15. Regarding the obligation to take the necessary actions to guarantee security so that former residents of the villages El Aro and La Granja, who have been displaced, can return, the State reported that "after several domestic diligences, on September 28 and 29, 2009 a day for the displaced beneficiaries of the judgment was held so as to fully indentify them, and complete the registration, as a first step by the State towards inclusion in the programs to address displacement. This activity was held in the town of Valdivia, Antioquia, and was proposed by the representatives of the victims for this purpose. The day was coordinated with the Interdisciplinary Group for Human Rights." The State indicated that "during the two days, approximately ninety displaced persons were attended to, of which, forty-three (43) were beneficiaries of the Judgment." It clarified that the representatives presented a list of the family members from Annex IV of the Judgment to the State, but for only 110 people in the list "was there all the information necessary to be attended." The State indicated that "after the end of the registration process, [...] these persons shall be included within the