8 d) regarding the fourth criterion, that this constituted “a strictly provisional parameter, given that the use set for the land by the community nowadays might possibly not be the same use set in the future; therefore, the State is concerned because the establishment of criteria with such a high degree of variability may generate serious difficulties at the moment of determining the beneficiaries of the provisional measures.” Additionally, the State emphasized that “the burden of the proof in matters of determination and identification of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures is strictly on […] the [Inter-American] Commission, the organ that requests the […] Court to adopt the measures in matters not yet submitted to the Tribunal[…], such as the case under study”. Furthermore, the State expressed its willingness “[to] work on the agreement and monitoring of the present provisional measures with the population that the […] Court determines as their beneficiary; and underline[d] the importance of the strengthening of the organizations […] of the Afro-Colombian population as well as of the Community Councils.” * * * 16. That the Court appreciates the efforts carried out by the Inter-American Commission regarding the group of criteria submitted for the determination of the beneficiaries of the present measures. The Tribunal is aware of the difficulties that such task has implied and the significance that it has for the effective implementation of this measures. However, the Court considers that, since it was the Commission who requested the adoption of the present provisional measures, it shall not limit the establishment of general criteria according to which the Tribunal shall decide who the beneficiaries of the present preliminary measures are. The Commission, besides having submitted objective criteria for the determination of the protected persons, shall inform clearly to the Tribunal its position as to which is the range of people that make up the beneficiary communities, namely, whether they were formed by the 161 families represented by the Inter-Ecclesiastical Commission of Justice and Peace, as well as the 231 claiming families, and the 450 families that make up the “Return Management Committee”, or if only one of this groups shall be considered as the beneficiary. 17. That despite that stated above, given the time that has passed since the request of the 231 families, and due to the fact that this type of request is continually submitted before this Tribunal by other groups of families, (supra Having Seen 8), the Court shall analyze the criteria presented by the Inter-American Commission in order to establish whether they are adequate to clarify which is the range of beneficiaries of the measures and, in this line, to evaluate the referred requests. 18. That regarding the first criteria provided by the Inter-American Commission, regarding the membership to the human group that forms the so-called “Minor Community Councils” of the basin of the Jiguamandó and Curvaradó rivers, recognized by the […] Colombian State locally and municipally, this Tribunal notes that the Law 70 of 1993, “[t]hrough which temporary Article 55 of the Political Constitution,” 7 does not establish a specific name designation for the organizational institutions established by the communities of the zone. Such law establishes that, in order to consider the communities as beneficiaries of the law, they shall establish Community Councils as a form of internal organization, 7 Crf. Law 70 of 1993, published in the Official Gazette No. 41.013 of August 31, 1993, which explained the provisional Article 55 of the Political Constitution. Available at: http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/ senado/basedoc/ley/1993/ley_0070_1993.html.