8 20. In its report of January 5, 2010, the State reiterated that "work meetings were held with the representatives of the Fondo Guatemalteco para la Vivienda [Guatemalan Housing Fund] (hereinafter, “FOGUAVI”) and the legal representatives of the beneficiaries [in order to] examine the adequate mechanisms to carry out the housing project” and, as a result of this, "in [the month of] December 2008, FOGUAVI and COPREDEH entered into an Inter-Institutional Agreement” for the term of one year, which was renewed for one additional year. It also informed that, within the framework of said Agreement, the representatives were requested to present “the case file of each one of the beneficiaries” in order to analyze said documentation and the socio-economic studies "to construct and/or improve each one of the beneficiaries’ houses". It further argued that the representatives, who had presented 208 case files to the State with the requested documentation, sustained that several beneficiaries had moved to other areas of the country and that they did not know where they were located. Finally, the State pointed out that it is waiting for these cases to be forwarded. 21. In its report submitted on August 18, 2010, the State repeated that the Institutional Cooperation Agreement has been signed and it pointed out that in the case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre, the "Presidential Commission held an informative meeting on May 20, 2010 [...] so that the representatives of the institutions involved would inform the leaders of Plan de Sanchez village [...] of the procedure to be followed in order to carry out the housing project; as well as to seek their support to present the necessary information and documentation to comply with the requirements established by the institutions involved”. The State sustained that, on said occasion, “the petitioners gave their approval to begin the housing project […].” In the report presented on December 1, 2010, the State pointed out, in reference to the representatives’ allegations related to the housing issue, that "from 2008 until the signing of the inter-institutional cooperation agreement […] on July 28 [2010], the legal representatives of [Centro para la Accion Legal en Derechos Humanos {Center for Human Rights Legal Action} (hereinafter, "CALDH")] and the petitioners were fully aware of the housing project" and that, now, the leaders of the communities of Plan de Sanchez and Ixchel expressed their disagreement with the dimensions of the houses and that the leader of the small village of Joya Ramos stated that the community has a skeptical attitude towards compliance with this measure. The State considered “it was worrying that after the housing project procedure, the petitioners still expressed their disagreement.” Lastly, it informed that “97 out of the 208 case files that were forwarded by the representatives [to FOGUAVI] were approved to start the construction of the houses in the following weeks.” It further alleged that CALDH, as a representative and advisor for the petitioners, must complete the remaining 111 case files by 2011. 22. In its observations of March 15, 2010, the representatives informed that they are waiting to convene a meeting with FOGUAVI to determine the specific progress made so far to comply with this measure, after FOGUAVI made the first visit to the community. To this end, they emphasized the need “for those who are assigned with the task of constructing [the] housing […] to learn about the acts that took place in the community and the Judgment that was delivered.” Moreover, they highlighted that said measure, much like the others, “must be restorative and not re-victimizing, therefore compliance therewith cannot be just another housing construction project, but rather the actual reconstruction of a community, their inhabitants and the social fabric”. Furthermore, in the observations of October 25, 2010, the representatives alleged that on September 22, 2010, a meeting was held with the representatives of governmental institutions (COPREDEH, FONAGUAVI, PNR and FONAPAZ) to deal with the issues related to the requirements needed to grant a housing subsidy. In this