3 6. The brief of April 8, 2007, through which Mrs. Amira Luisa Delgado Mestra, mother of the disappeared victim Ariel Dullis Diaz Delgado, indicated that the State had not complied with the majority of the obligations imposed by the Judgment of the Court and she requested to be informed regarding the proceedings the next of kin of the victims can file and before which official Colombian instance, in order to speed up the processes and their processing. On May 9, 2007 the Secretariat informed her that the case was in monitoring of compliance before the Court and it indicated to her who the State Agent and organizations that had acted as representatives of the victims were. 7. The briefs of June 19 and September 4, 2007, through which the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) presented its observations to the State’s first report and its additional report. 8. The brief of August 9, 2007, through which the Colombian Commission of Jurists filed, as representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”), a copy of the brief addressed to the public prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation, with considerations and requests regarding the search of the disappeared persons that was being planned for August 12 of that same year. 9. The brief of August 30, 2007, through which the representatives referred to “facts that have been occurring in townships surrounding and close to Pueblo Bello [that] would make evident an imminent danger for its inhabitants” and they informed that they had requested governmental representatives “to take timely and effective measures in order to prevent situations of risk or danger against the population of the township of Pueblo Bello.” 10. The brief of November 21, 2007, through which the State made reference to the brief presented by the representatives (supra Having Seen paragraph 8). 11. The brief of January 14, 2008, through which the State referred to compliance with the act of acknowledgment of international responsibility and of public apology by the State. 12. The brief of January 27, 2008, through which the representatives presented their observations to the State’s reports, after two reiterations by the Secretariat, following the then President’s instructions (supra Having Seen paragraph 5). 13. The note of the Secretariat of February 12, 2008, through which it informed that, during the regular sessions being held, the briefs of January 14 and 27, 2008 presented by the State and the representatives were made of the knowledge of the full Court, which ruled, specifically, on the question made regarding the manner in which the realization of the act of public apology and acknowledgment of international responsibility had been set out. 14. The note of the Secretariat of April 24, 2008, through which, following the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it requested that the State forward, no later than May 23, 2008, a report on the status of the implementation of all the reparation measures pending compliance.