2011, the representatives made another proposal. The State indicated that the scholarship proposal was viable (tuition and living expenses) for the son of Nelly Valle Jaramillo, who was pursuing a master's degree at a Bogota university, but stressed that, in order to award the same amount of money to Carlos Jaramillo Correa's son, a mechanism would have to be established to ensure that the money was really used to study or learn a profession, in order to comply with this measure of reparation relating the damage caused to the life project and the change in the living conditions of the victims who are beneficiaries. Consequently, the State indicated that, when it had received the relevant documentation, the measure would be implemented through the Ministry of Education, the Colombian Institute for the Evaluation of Education (ICFES) and the Colombian Institute for Student Loans and Technical Studies Abroad (ICETEX). 35. The representatives considered that the State's approval of the scholarship for the son of Nelly Valle Jaramillo was positive. Consequently, they asked the Court to “endorse this proposal, [which] indicates that the payment will be made without any conditions other than demonstrating enrolment in the university [or] the payment of tuition; in other words, conditions related to the studies.” They also considered it necessary that, “first, the entity responsible for complying with this obligation must be established.” 36. The Commission took note of the State’s intention and assessed positively the fact that Colombia had given its opinion with regard to the damage to the life project, underscoring the coordination between the representatives and the State and the agreements reached concerning Nelly Valle Jaramillo’s son, as well as the willingness to achieve a viable solution for the son of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa. 37. The Court assesses positively the willingness and readiness of the State to enter into dialogue and to collaborate with the representatives in to order implement the nineteenth operative paragraph of the judgment. In this regard, the Court considers it feasible to endorse the agreement reached between the representatives of the victims and the State, taking into account that it does not denature the reparative spirit of the measure and helps redress the damage caused to the life project and the change in the living conditions of the victims who are beneficiaries. However, in keeping with the observations made during the hearing, the Court awaits the presentation of a document with the specific terms of the agreement, in order to consider it and eventually endorse it. Consequently, it asks the parties to report, as soon as possible, on the steps taken to implement this measure in order to assess its eventual compliance. h) Regarding the obligation to guarantee the safety of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa if he decides to return to Colombia (twentieth operative paragraph of the judgment) 38. The State reiterated its willingness to comply with this measure of reparation, and indicated that it is waiting for Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa to indicate his intention to return to Colombia, either temporarily or permanently, in order to reach agreement with him on the measures necessary to comply with the decision of the Court. During the hearing, the State expressed its “complete commitment to ensuring the safety of Carlos Fernando [Jaramillo Correa] and his family when he decides to return to Colombia.” Finally, the State considered that it could establish a coordination committee and that, based on some possible return dates, reach agreement on security and other measures that the State could provide to guarantee his return. 12