84 compensation granted by the PNR “does not constitute fair and decent compensation for the moral damage” caused to their communities. In their observations on the preliminary objections, they stated that: i) “the program has set a maximum amount to compensate victims, regardless of the number of victims that a family has lost and reported”, and ii) the program “does not compensate all victims for each of the violations contemplated in Article 3 of Governmental Agreement 43-2005 43-2005. Violations such as forced displacement and deaths from disease, hunger and the subhuman conditions endured during the forced displacement in the mountains and elsewhere are also not compensated.” Thus, they asked the Court to determine that the PRN “does not meet accepted international standards of reparation.” In the public hearing they alleged that the PNR “has not been effective and has not provided comprehensive, transformative and satisfactory reparations to the victims and the communities.” They also pointed out that at the end of March 2016 the PRN office in the municipality of Rabinal closed and they “do not know why.” 278. The Commission indicated that it did not have specific information regarding the reparations granted by the PRN and the totality of the facts and violations declared in the present case. In its final written arguments, it recognized and appreciated the administrative reparation programs established by the States for serious human rights violations. However, it argued that they cannot replace the reparations to be ordered by the Court in the framework of an individual case, due to the fact that: i) the victims in the case have gone through domestic judicial proceedings to reach the inter-American system and are currently awaiting a decision, also judicial, in which the Court establishes the violations committed to their detriment and directly decides on the reparations due to them, without the need for further proceedings to prove their status as victims before the State authorities; ii) the reparations ordered by the Court in the international sphere have specific content and scope that are determined by the Court according to the specific circumstances of the case; iii) by virtue of the independent nature of international reparations, it is not up to the bodies of the inter-American system to subject such reparations for a victim of a violation of his or her conventional rights to the State’s domestic instruments, which may suffer from defects, imperfections or insufficiencies; and iv) the PRN has serious shortcomings in its implementation. 279. The Court appreciates and recognizes the actions undertaken by the State through the National Reparations Program (PNR) to redress the human rights violations perpetrated in the context of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. However, in the instant case, it does not appear from the evidence provided by the State that the persons compensated through the PNR have “agreed not to file any other claim against the State in the future” for the facts of the case, as alleged by Guatemala. On the contrary, the agreements and settlements on “Payment of Financial Compensation” expressly indicate that the persons compensated retain the right to be beneficiaries of other measures granted by the PNR “that complete the integral compensation” 332 and/or “to appear before the competent jurisdictional bodies to pursue the legal proceedings arising from the human rights violations suffered by the aforementioned victim.” 333 payment and who does not, which generates internal conflict among family groups; that sons and daughters whose fathers or mothers suffered violations are excluded as beneficiaries; that the fact that PAC members received payment for their services –often of a criminal nature – before the victims were compensated, caused annoyance, “wounds and divisions” in the affected communities; that victims of serious human rights violations were excluded from the program for having belonged to the PAC, despite the fact that in many cases membership in the PAC was mandatory; that the “improved houses” that began to be built in 2010 are not culturally appropriate; that the materials for their construction were delivered on the road closest to the communities, which entailed transportation costs, and that some families have the material, already deteriorated, without having built their homes because these households are comprised of women and elderly people. 332 Agreements and settlements on “Payment of financial compensation” (evidence file folios 10194 and 10198, etc.). These settlements state that the persons receiving payments release the PNR and the State from all liability for any claims that may be brought by other persons with equal or greater right to be beneficiaries, which is not equivalent to releasing the State from all liability for the facts of the case. 333 Agreements and settlements of “Payment of financial compensation” (evidence file folios, 10224 and 10588, etc.).