11 32. That, more than three years have passed since this Judgment was notified and more than thirteen and eleven years since the victims were displaced from the districts of La Granja and El Aro, respectively. Due to the time passed and considering the effects that forced displacement causes on the victims and the situation of risk and vulnerability to which they are exposed,19 this measure of reparation must be complied with as soon as possible. Therefore, the Court urges the State to coordinate with the victims and their representatives, the meetings and measures necessary to guarantee the security of those surviving victims that decide to return to the municipality of Ituango. If it is not possible to create such conditions, to provide the necessary and sufficient resources to ensure that the victims of forced displacement mentioned in Appendice IV of the Judgment may resettle in similar conditions to those they had before these events, in a place they freely and voluntarily choose. In turn, the State may provide the victims with socioeconomic aid and access to housing subsidies as long as the victims give their express consent to it. The Court requests the parties to submit complete and updated information in this regard. * * * 33. That as to the obligation to organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility for the facts of this case, in the presence of senior authorities, Colombia indicated that, in spite of the representatives’ request to have the President of the Republic preside said act, this shall not be possible “due to the busy agenda” but the State “is willing to listen to other suggestions of the petitioners about whom should preside the act”. According to the State, “the petitioners refused to make a proposal in that sense”. Besides, the State mentioned that, according to the case-law of the Court, this type of acts must not be presided over by the President or Vice-President of the Republic to comply with the effect of reparation. Consequently, it was agreed that “the State shall decide on this issue and present a document to the petitioners containing a proposal to discuss the organization of the act”. “In the meeting conducted on June 18, 2008, the […] representatives stated that they requested the State to postpone the compliance with this measure of reparation since they considered it was conditional upon the previous compliance with other measures”. Before this request, the State argued that the act should be organized as soon as possible, considering “the availability of the high-ranking officer that would preside over it and the expiration of the term established in the Judgment”. Nevertheless, the representatives were requested "to send a communication, signed by the victims’ next-of-kin (at least, the majority of them) where they should state their agreement to postpone the organization of the act of public apology”. The victims’ representatives have never sent the document requested to the State; therefore, the State requested the Court authorization to “organize the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility as soon as possible and under the conditions established by the Tribunal” and “to urge the victims’ representatives on to agree on the details of the act and allow the participation of the victims’ next-of-kin”. 34. That the representatives informed that in November, 2006 they communicated to the State the minimum conditions they considered were necessary to organize the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility. According to the representatives, the acknowledgment of responsibility “must be made by the President [of the Republic, considering that he was the Governor of the Department of Antioquia at the time the facts occurred]; otherwise, by the Vice-President of the Republic”. Furthermore, the representatives have explained to the State that before the denial of these authorities to preside over the act of acknowledgment, and considering the delay in the compliance with almost the entire provisions of the Judgment of the Court, they consider that “the 19 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 125(106).