7 27. Note CDH-10,319/709 of April 7, 2000, in which the Secretariat, on the instruction of the President, requested the State to provide information on several components of the judgments on merits and reparations delivered by the Court that were pending compliance. Among these, it mentioned the payment owing to the minors, Andrés Caballero Parra and Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez; the payment owing to the next of kin of María del Carmen Santana; finding the remains of the victims and delivering them to their next of kin, and the judicial proceedings on the disappearance and alleged death of the victims in the case, as well as the punishment of those responsible. 28. The report of the State of May 15, 2000, and its attachments, in which it indicated that it had invested in TDCs “in favor of the minors[,… although] they were in the name of the Ministry of Defense, in view of the irrevocable assignment to the Ministry by FIDUBANCOOP” and because the United States banking laws prohibited the establishment of TDCs in the name of minors under 18 years of age. It also reported that, in relation to the compensation for the next of kin of Ms. Santana, it had also established a TDC in the name of the Ministry of Defense, until the closest next of kin were determined under domestic legislation. With regard to finding the remains of the victims, the State indicated that “a total of four exhumation procedures ha[d] been conducted to search for the bodies [...], and they [...] ha[d] not been successful.” Lastly, Colombia stated that “it [was] continuing to make efforts to identify and punish those responsible for the disappearance of Isidro Caballero and María del Carmen Santana.” 29. The brief of June 16, 2000, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report (supra twenty-eighth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that the TDCs had not been established in the name of the minors or their representatives, but in the name of the Ministry of Defense, although the State had not justified its decision not to establish them in the name of the representatives of the minors. It also indicated that, in September 1999, the representatives had provided evidence of the existence of María del Carmen Santana and her next of kin, but, even though they had obtained authoritative documents that, according to domestic legislation, were appropriate evidence to show the existence of a person, the Office of the Attorney General had ordered measures designed to find the persons who had already been identified. The Commission indicated that the State had not adopted measures to recover the remains of the victims since 1995. Regarding the investigation of the facts, the Commission stated that on September 10, 1998, the closure of the investigation had been revoked in order to again question the persons linked to the homicide, but that 20 months later, it had not received information on the extension to the investigation. It also indicated that the State had not provided adequate information on the termination of the proceeding against Major General Alfonso Vacca Perilla. The attachment to the said brief contained recommendations made by the Technical Investigations Unit to “locate the site where the victims [were] buried.” 30. The brief of the State of June 29, 2000, in which it requested the Court to authorize the establishment of a TDC instead of a trust fund in favor of the next of kin of María del Carmen Santana, since the country’s financial institutions were not interested in establishing the trust fund “because the amount of the investment would not be cost-effective.” 31. The brief of August 1, 2000, and its attachment, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report of June 29, 2000 (supra thirtieth