10 understood7 and have a greater impact upon the population in general. In this case, the text even includes photographs of the deceased victims and Colombia’s public statement on “its commitment to fully comply with the reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court […].” To refer the Court’s Judgment to the National Reparations and Reconciliation Commission 41. As for the obligation to refer the Judgment, through a high-ranking authority, to the National Reparations and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter, “CNRR”) (paragraph 277(II)(2) of the Judgment), the State and the representatives, by means of a joint communication of September 28, 2007 (supra Having Seen 3), explained that, even though it was stipulated in the agreement that said high-ranking authority should request the CNRR to consider the possibility of “including [L]a Rochela Massacre in its reports on paramilitarism and using the Inter-American Court’s Judgment in this case as one of its formal sources,” “producing a ‘report on paramilitarism’ is not among CNRR’s duties. They explained that, nevertheless, the CNRR must "[p]resent a public report on the reasons for the emergence and evolution of illegal armed groups." In that respect, the State and the representatives explained that “the reparation measure refers to the [latter] report” and indicated that “[t]his clarification does not imply any modification of the content of the measure, which seeks to ensure that the [CNRR] take the decision of the Inter-American Court into account [...] in this case." 42. Afterwards, the State reported that in December 2007, the Vice-President of the Republic forwarded a note to the President of the CNRR, prior to doing so, the content was read and approved by the victims’ representatives. Furthermore, it highlighted that the case of La Rochela Massacre "was selected as a study subject by the Group of Historical Memory of the [CNRR].” Based on the foregoing, the State requested the Court to declare compliance with this reparation measure. 43. The representatives stated that Colombia “complied with this measure” and requested the Court to declare the compliance. Moreover, they emphasized that the Group of Historical Memory of the CNRR was preparing a report on La Rochela Massacre. 44. The Commission noted that the representatives requested the Court to declare compliance with this measure. 45. In view of the parties’ requests and explanations, and taking into account the alleged information, the Court deems that the State has satisfactorily complied with this reparation measure. To continue providing educational assistance (scholarships) to the victims’ next of kin 46. In relation to the “best efforts obligation” to “continue providing educational assistance (scholarships) to the victims’ next of kin for state or private, secondary, technical and higher education institutions in Colombia” (paragraph 277(III)(1) of the Judgment), the State informed that the Presidential Program on Human Rights had processed all the applications of the victims' next-of-kin that were presented according to the conditions established and it stated that the granting of the scholarships “will be 7 See Case of Escue Zapata V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 18, 2010, Considering Clause 31.