6 relevant programs according to their specific needs." Additionally, it stated that, "considering the day focused on one municipality and the beneficiaries of the Judgment can be found in several locations, it provided them with a means of registering after the day, through the Personería [Head Office] of the Municipality where they reside, and also at another special day in the city of Medellin." Finally, the State emphasized that "it is conducting several activities to comply with this measure, which represents a major challenge for the State due to the particular needs of the displaced population." 16. The representatives reported that in meetings to monitor compliance with the measures so ordered by the Court in November 2009, and subsequently in March 2010, "delegates of the Ministry of Defense directly and expressly stated that the public order conditions and security conditions in the Ituango zone were not suitable for the return of the displaced persons." They noted that "currently, the few families left in the area, are those who returned shortly after the facts occurred, left despaired by the poverty and difficult living conditions they had to face in the places they moved to."They stressed that "the State has not even attempted to improve the security situation in the area." Regarding the socioeconomic recovery for people unable to return, they said that despite all the activities promoted, facilitated and aided by the representatives of the victims and next-of-kin, including a failed action for protection against Acción Social [Social Action] in September 2009, to date none has been of real help. They also reported that a disciplinary claim against the then National Director of the Agencia Presidencial para la Acción Social [Presidential Agency for Social Action] was filed due to the failure to register victims in the Register of Displaced Persons. 17. The Commission did not submit observations regarding this reparation measure. 18. Regard the issue, the President notes that this reparation measure comprises two obligations: ensuring the safety of the surviving victims who decide to return to the town of Ituango, and while there are no such security conditions, necessary and sufficient resources should be available to ensure that victims of forced displacement, listed in Annex IV of the Judgment, can resettle in the place that they freely and voluntarily choose, in conditions similar to those in which they resided before the facts occurred 5. On this basis, the President deems it necessary for the State to report on the measures taken by the various national institutions responsible for compliance with these obligations. d) Regarding operative paragraph eighteen of the Judgment 19. Regarding the obligation to hold a public act to acknowledge responsibility for the facts of the case, the State said it has proposed to the representatives of the victims, on several occasions, that a meeting be held to address the act and other judgment compliance issues, but for various reasons it has not been held, but it was willing come to an agreement with the representatives to "carry out work together that fosters the implementation of this satisfaction measure." 20. The representatives reported that "they acknowledge the State's decision not to perform any acts without the consent and participation of the victims' next-of-kin." They also indicated that "in accordance with the majority position of the relatives and surviving victims [...] no agreement ha[s] been reached regarding the immediate implementation" of this reparation measure. The Court reiterated that it "endorses the decision of the victims 5 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres , supra note 7, para. 404.