in the context of an amparo proceeding or any other judicial remedy or administrative procedure against the application of Decree 673 – that recognizes, restitutes or grants the right to a pension, the execution of which has not started or is still ongoing.” The Court notes that the identity of the group of persons to whom this measure of reparation is addressed is clear, and also the conditions they must meet to be considered as such. 33. With regard to the foregoing, the reference to “any other information or document necessary to fully execute the judgment issued in their favor” in paragraph 226 of the judgment, should be understood as part of the State obligation to create the list that is the main purpose of the guarantee of non-repetition. In this way, the information or document referred to in point (b) of paragraph 226 includes the information that will allow the State to individualize adequately the persons who meet the criteria established in paragraph 225, as well as the total amount of the payments they have not received and those to which they have a right, in order to comply satisfactorily with the execution of the internal judicial rulings or administrative decisions issued in their favor. However, the Court clarifies that this measure does not mean that the persons who are incorporated on the list created by the State are direct beneficiaries of this Court’s judgment (as the 597 persons listed in Annex 2 of the judgment are); or that, merely by being incorporated on the list, such persons acquire the right to receive reparation. In this understanding, it is clear that those persons who have obtained an administrative decision in their favor should not necessarily have to go to court to be incorporated on the list that the State must create to comply with part of the guarantee of non-repetition. 34. Furthermore, with regard to the scope, purpose and implications of the guarantee of nonrepetition ordered by the Court in the judgment, the Court finds it relevant to indicate that those elements are revealed by paragraphs 225 and 226 of the judgment when it indicates that the State must “create a list” that permits identifying adequately all those persons who are in similar situations to the victims in the instant case in accordance with paragraphs 225 and 226 and, thus, possess the necessary elements to execute the judicial ruling or administrative decision that “recognizes, restitutes or grants the right to a pension, the execution of which has not started or is still ongoing.” In this way, the said guarantee of nonrepetition has the scope of an obligation of means, and its purpose is that, by creating this list, the State will expedite the adoption of measures that allow it to resolve human rights violations similar to those declared in the judgment. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the measure of reparation ordered has a general purpose, due to its nature as a guarantee of nonrepetition; however, it is addressed at assisting the State – in compliance with its obligations to respect and to ensure rights – to make progress in resolving the broader issue signified by the failure to execute judicial rulings or administrative decisions that recognize pension rights to members of ANCEJUB who were affected by the application of Decree 673, but who have not been recognized as victims in the judgment. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 35. Therefore, THE COURT, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 10