9 1. That the State of Colombia must indicate to the Court, within 30 days of notification of this order, the reasons why the term deposit certificate corresponding to the payment of the amounts owing to the minors, Andrés Caballero Parra and Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez, [had not been] established, as would have been appropriate, in principle, in favor of the representatives of the said minors, but rather in favor of the Ministry of Defense. After examining the explanation, the Court w[ould] take the pertinent decision. 2. That the State of Colombia must indicate to the Court, within 30 days of notification of this order, the reasons why Ana Vitelma Ortíz has not been paid the interest earned from January 1998 to May 2001, on the sum of money that the Court established as compensation for non-pecuniary damages in favor of the next of kin of María del Carmen Santana. When the explanations have been examined, the Court will take the pertinent decision. 3. That, within 30 days of notification of th[e] order, the State of Colombia must provide information on the measures taken to locate the remains of the victims and deliver them to the next of kin and also on the progress of the judicial proceedings leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the facts of the case. 38. The report of the State of January 14, 2002, and its attachment, in which it referred to the aspects requested in the Order of the Court (supra thirty-seventh having seen paragraph). In this respect, it advised that ‘[t]he legislation of the United States prohibit[ed] establishing [TDCs] in the name of minors” and that the State wanted to avoid third parties being able to redeem the security, so that it established the latter in the name of the Ministry of Defense, but in favor of the minors, who would receive monthly interest payments through their representatives. Regarding the amount of interest claimed by Mrs. Ortiz, it stated that “the Ministry […] [did] not owe any amount for interest on the US$10,000 […] since this amount had been adjusted to the value in force at the date the obligation was paid” and “the way in which the Ministry of Defense had adjusted the amounts initially ordered mean[t] that the purchasing power of the compensation ordered by the Court was retained.” Regarding the investigation, it stated that the National Human Rights Unit was conducting this and six individuals were being investigated as being involved. Lastly, it added that, in relation to the search for the corpses, “no precise date ha[d] been established for [the respective] procedure,” because several of the State’s intelligence agencies had indicated that there were security problems in the area where the bodies had allegedly been buried. 39. The brief of February 12, 2002, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report (supra thirty-eighth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it stated, regarding the establishment of the TDCs, that, “should the State consider that the mothers of the minors [were] not in a position to administer the funds properly […], domestic law provided mechanisms to establish the eventual responsibility of the legal representatives.” It also indicated that “the failure to pay the compensation owed to the next of kin of María del Carmen [Santana] occurred because of the absence of effective measures to locate the victim’s next of kin and even the denial of [her] identity,” so that the payment of interest for the delay could be attributed to this factor. With regard to the search for the remains of the victims, the Commission indicated that the State had not “provided any explanation about the measures taken since 1995 […] to at least identify [the] place where [their] remains might be found.” Lastly, it stated that “even though ten years had elapsed since the events, impunity still reign[ed] with regard to the facts.”