11 at the educational institution’s discretion.” The State manifested that a document was forwarded to the victims’ representatives regarding the application procedure for a scholarship, in order to clarify the doubts raised by the next-of-kin. The State attached documents that compile the educational benefits provided by said Presidential Program before the different educational institutions, the scholarships that were granted, those that were denied and those that had not been processed because the interested parties did not present the necessary documents. According to the information, from December 2007 to September 2008, “it was possible to process scholarships for 21 victims who had directly applied to the Program or who had expressed their interest through [the representatives] or other victims.” Then, it stated that during 2009, said Presidential Program processed the university scholarship applications on behalf of three next-of-kin, but “despite the repeated applications, it was not possible to obtain a favorable response” for two of them. The State highlighted that this situation was communicated to the next-of-kin “who regretted the results but seemed to be understanding, taking into account the nature of the “best effort” obligation related to these actions.” Therefore, it requested the Court to “declare that the State is complying with this reparation measure in an effective and timely manner.” 47. The representatives noted that the State has processed scholarships for some relatives of the victims and expressed that they agree with the State in that “it is complying with this reparation measure.” They indicated that they understand that “the State will continue to provide assistance within its legal power, and the Court will continue to monitor compliance with this reparation measure.” 48. The Commission took note of the information presented by the parties regarding this measure. Moreover, the Commission indicated that it "took note with satisfaction" of the information presented by the State on the development of activities to honor the commitments made, as well as the observations of the representatives that confirm the progress made to that end, and “[that] it [was] waiting for information on the effective and full implementation of all the aspects of the reparation measure.” 49. According to the information furnished and taking into account that the State requested the Court to declare that “it is complying with this measure in an effective and timely manner,” and that the representatives agree with the State, the Tribunal values the actions taken by Colombia during 2007, 2008 and 2009 and considers that the State has been fulfilling the measure to provide scholarships to the victims’ next-of-kin. This Tribunal considers it is necessary for the State to present information on compliance with this measure in 2010 and to continue implementing it. Furthermore, given that Colombia has been satisfactorily complying with this reparation measure for several years, the Tribunal considers it pertinent to require the representatives to communicate, in their observations on the State’s report (infra operative paragraph three), whether they believe there to be other victims' next-of-kin who would be interested in benefiting from this reparation. To continue offering job vacancies at the Colombian Prosecutor’s Office to the victims and their next of kin 50. In relation to the measure to the effect that the Colombian Prosecutor’s Office shall continue offering job vacancies to the victims and their next of kin, “in so far as they meet the qualification standards required to occupy the positions [...]" (paragraph 277(III)(2) of the Judgment), the State manifested that said Prosecutor's Office "has processed all the applications presented and most of them had had a positive response”. The State attached a document from said Prosecutor’s Office, which contains a list of the