61 the land had gone to private hands,” and added that the issue under consideration had not been expressed in “any of the facts on which the witnesses and expert witnesses were proposed, [therefore] it [did] not have any accurate information.” Consequently, the Court deemed it suitable to request the State and the representatives to submit information, in their briefs on closing arguments, on the current status of the lands of the community Las Dos Erres, as well as the decision and actions pursued by the State to return the lands to the alleged victims. 220. On August 18, 2009, both the representatives and the State submitted the requested information to the Court. In this regard, the State indicated that there are “certain records showing the names of some of the victims of the massacre, who do not appear as grantees and/or owners of any plot; since […] there are only request records[,] but the records do not show that any payments were made for [the] lands.” It added that the representatives did not resort to “the domestic jurisdiction in any process of vindication of the property [and that] they did not include it either […] in any point of the Friendly Settlement Agreement[, but that] it is recorded that in the economic reparations granted the material losses were include[d].” Lastly, it indicated that the ownership of the lands has not been an issue in the proceeding before the Court, since neither the Commission nor the representatives requested a declaration of the violation of the related Article of the Convention. 221. The representatives indicated that since the community was destroyed, the survivors and their families ran away for fear of new acts of violence and retaliations, and that according to what was expressed by expert witness Nieves Gomez, the majority of the survivors live outside of the Department of Petén. They added that in 1994 they tried to collect information on what had happened to the lands, and according to testimonies given by the relatives, many inhabitants had made contributions according to the agreement for the establishment of a basis (convenio de fijación de base), but the scarce documents that currently exist were held by the relatives or survivors that lived in the outskirts of the community. They indicated that “there are references that the lands where the Las Dos Erres community used to be are ‘a farm of a sole owner’ and that it belongs to one of the richest families [of] Petén.” Finally, they indicated that the State has “not taken measures to investigate […] what happened to the lands” and even that “the State institutions have denied the existence of the community.” The Commission did not make any considerations in this regard. 222. The Court observes that the facts indicated in the application, which constitute the factual background of the instant case, refer to the facts that affected real estate assets property of the inhabitants of the Las Dos Erres community. In this regard, the application, as well as the Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 22/08 of the Commission, only indicate that “[t]he soldiers in charge took everything they found: household items, animals, grains, among other. […] The next day the soldiers and patrollers burned down the houses of Las Dos Erres.” In this regard, the Court indicates that although there were infringements to the right to property of the inhabitants of the Las Dos Erres Community in the context of the Massacre, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudge on the alleged violation, given that they occurred prior to the recognition of its jurisdiction, and do not constitute continued violations which would allow it to rule in that regard. XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention)