Tejada, Olegario Rodríguez Tepec, Teodoro Jiménez Pernillo and Edwin Saúl Romero García18. In this respect, the Court deems it is appropriate to indicate that the State as well as the representatives must coordinate the necessary actions to locate the persons who have still not received the payment and, in the case of the deceased victims, they must render assistance in order for their relatives to take the actions or carry out the judicial proceedings that are pertinent to be able to receive the corresponding compensations. 25. Lastly, in relation to the payment of the reimbursement of costs and legal expenses in favor of the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter, “CEJIL”), the State informed that “it paid [CEJIL] as reimbursement of legal costs and expenses [the amount of US$] 27,500.00 [(twenty-seven thousand five hundred] dollars of the United States of America])]". The representatives confirmed that "the State [...] effectively paid the amount ordered by the Inter-American Court to CEJIL". In consequence, the Court considers that the State has fully complied with the payment of the costs and legal expenses ordered in the judgment. IV. Other measures of reparation pending compliance 26. The Court notes that the State has not presented fundamental and detailed information regarding the progress made in the observation of the other measures of reparation ordered that are pending compliance19. 27. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers it is necessary to reiterate the request made to the State in the Order of July 6, 2011. To this end, it requests the State to adopt, forthwith, all measures that are necessary to promptly and effectively comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment on the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs of November 24, 2009, which are pending compliance. Moreover, it requests the State to submit updated, complete and detailed information on such actions. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human 18 The State referred to this person as “Edvin Saul Romero García”, supra note 12. 19 In this respect, it has only made reference, in its report of May 4, 2012, to the adoption of measures to amend the Law on Amparo, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality, and it emphasized that there are two legislative bills (registered under numbers “3319” and “2942”) which had obtained favorable votes but have been under deliberation since November 29, 2007 and April 28, 2010, respectively. In this regard, the State has presented information on such bills prior to the Order of the Court of July 6, 2011 and the Judgment (Cf. Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 14, considering paragraphs fifteen to eighteen). In its report of December 20, 2010, the State referred to bill “3942” and in its report of May 4, 2012, to bill “2942”. However, from the information presented, it does not spring that the State had made reference to a different legislative proposal. In this regard, the representatives “not[ed] with concern that the State did not refer to new bills, actions or specific measures to make progress in the compliance with the measure of reparation in question [and that] it has neither referred to measures adopted to guarantee the effective use of the remedy of amparo until the corresponding ammendement is effective". In turn, the Commission "observ[ed] with concern the lack of progress in relation to the order of the Court" . 8