5 13. That, in this regard, the representatives have indicated that the said project does not include the beneficiaries of these provisional measures and that “[…] no diagnosis has been made of the humanitarian situation of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó Communities, nor have proposals for prevention and protection plans been agreed on.” In addition, they said that the State had not provided humanitarian aid to these Communities and that the measures to which the State had been referring in its reports had been provided to other inhabitants. In any event, the representatives considered it important that the humanitarian aid should be delivered to the beneficiary communities by the relevant institutions of the National System for Integral Attention to the Displaced Population (“SNAIPD”) and not by military personnel, in order to respect the decision of these Communities not to become involved in the armed conflict. 14. That, in its observations, the Inter-American Commission considered that the State had not provided information on the measures adopted to comply with its obligation to provide special protection to the “humanitarian refuge zones.” 15. That, based on the above, the Court requires the State to provide further information on this point, in the terms of the fourth operative paragraph of the Order of March 6, 2003 (supra first having seen paragraph). * * * 16. That, with regard to the measures to guarantee the necessary security conditions so that the beneficiaries of these provisional measures who have been forced to displace may return to the place they came from, the State emphasized that the return of these people should be conducted within the framework of specific protocols and that the Communities should await the outcome of the administrative procedures initiated by the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) concerning demarcation, because it was not the State’s policy to support a fait accompli. In this regard, the State indicated that, through INCODER, it had awarded different areas of land in the jurisdiction of Carmen de Darién and Belén de Bajirá to the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó Community Councils, and that the work of ICODER was addressed, above all, at recovering land that has been illegally occupied and recognizing authentic titles. Regarding the alleged activities of the cultivation of oil palm and livestock farming on the lands of these Community Councils, the State reported that it was carrying out the delimitation and demarcation of any private land that might be located in the said areas, in addition to the collective lands awarded to the communities of African descent organized into the Community Councils of the valleys of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Rivers. The State attached documentation in this regard. 17. That, in their observations, the representatives indicated that, during the course of paramilitary operations, “third parties, in other words palm oil entrepreneurs, using pressure by the paramilitary groups, fraud and forged documents, [were allowed] to prove hypothetical private property rights over lands within the territory of the Curbaradó and the Jiguamiandó” on which palm trees had been planted illegally. Moreover, the representatives considered that the State had used the argument of the complexity of verifying the legal ownership of the land in order not to support the return of the members of these Communities, instead of considering the principle of security. The representatives also indicated that the return of various communities to specific territories did not constitute a fait accompli, but rather to a return to their places of origin; consequently, they considered that the “[…] institutional negligence in solving the problem of the illegal appropriation of property, the continuing increase in the cultivation