22. With regard to the measure of reparation concerning the safe return of the displaced persons, the State indicated that it should be understood that the original place or community to which they should return was the actual village of Los Josefinos. Regarding the compensation payments, the State indicated that it was “necessary that the deductions be assumed by all the members of the family.” Also, regarding the payments ordered to some victims who had died, it indicated that “the sums that would have been delivered to a beneficiary who died before the judgment was handed down, sh[ould] be recognized as part of the reparation to the remaining members of the family.” 23. The Commission indicated that the Court could “clarify the criteria” for deducting the sums already paid to the victims at the domestic level under the Friendly Settlement Agreement. It also indicated that paragraphs 80 and 83 of the judgment referred indistinctly to the return of the victims, either to their place of origin or to the village of Los Josefinos, which “could result in some degree of confusion for the correct implementation of the reparation by the State” and, therefore, clarification of “where the State should guarantee the safe return of the victims to would facilitate implementation of this measure.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 24. With regard to the measure established in the thirteenth operative paragraph concerning appropriate guarantees for the return to “their original communities,” the Court considers that it is appropriate to make a clarification in this regard. Therefore, the Court notes that the said thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment indicates that this measure should be implemented “pursuant to paragraph 153 of this judgment.” The said paragraph 153 indicates that the State “has not submitted specific arguments or proof verifying that, currently, the necessary guarantees exist for [the 49 victims of forced displacement in this case] to be able to return to the village [of Los Josefinos], if they so wish.” Although the Court ordered the State to ensure the appropriate conditions for the persons who remained displaced to return to their “original communities,” the Court considers that a harmonious and comprehensive interpretation of this measure leads to the conclusion that the original community referred to is, specifically, the village of Los Josefinos. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that the victims have six months, as of notification of this interpretation judgment, to advise the State of their intention to return to the village of Los Josefinos if they so wish. 25. In addition, regarding the method for deducting the payments that have already been made under the 2007 Friendly Settlement Agreement, the Court notes that paragraph 177 of the judgment indicates the following: 177. The sums that have already been delivered to victims in this case at the domestic level must be recognized as part of the reparation owing to them and deducted from the compensation amounts established by the Court in this judgment. At the stage of monitoring judgment in this case, the State must validate the delivery of the amounts established under the said program. 26. The Court deems it pertinent to clarify that the payments already made to the person representing the family group under the 2007 Friendly Settlement Agreement must be assumed by the person who effectively received the payment as the representative of the family unit. 27. Moreover, if that person should have died, the respective deduction must be made from the amount corresponding to this victim based on the criteria indicated in the preceding paragraph; that is, the total payment made to that person in the past under the 2007 Friendly Settlement Agreement will be deducted. Once this deduction has been made – if applicable – the 6