11 hand, in the hypothetical situation of the previous paragraph (supra para. 33), the person who was the wife or common-law spouse of the victim at the time of his death or disappearance must prove that fact according to the applicable domestic legal provisions. 35. Pursuant to the above, the Court has established the meaning and scope of the provisions of paragraph 240 subparagraph a) of the Judgment. VII HOUSING PROGRAM Pleadings of the State 36. The State requested an interpretation regarding the scope of the form of reparation set forth in paragraphs 275 and 276 of the Judgment. Deeming that “the proven fact on which the reparation is based is extremely general [to know] for certain whether or not the parameters expected by the Court are being fulfilled,” the State asked the following specific questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Judgment lists in Appendix I [sic] the group of beneficiaries regarding to each victim. Can the State infer that each family group would receive one house? What is the deadline for these persons to make their claim before the State? What evidence must be supplied to be a beneficiary of this measure of reparation? What is the deadline for the State to comply with the obligation, once the right to benefit from the housing program has been proven? Under the domestic legal order, an individual cannot benefit twice from government housing programs. If one of the beneficiaries (in accordance with the reply to question number 1) has benefited from a government housing program, can it be understood that the obligation established in the Judgment has been fulfilled? Pleadings of the Commission 37. Regarding to the request by the State regarding implementation of the housing program, the Inter-American Commission stated, inter alia, that: a) b) c) the effet utile of said measure of satisfaction is related to the reparation for losses and to creating the conditions required to return to Pueblo Bello. The Commission deemed that any implementation of the program designed must bear in mind the objectives stated by the Court; regarding to the deadline, as the Court stated in paragraph 287, the Commission deemed that the State must comply with said obligation within a “reasonable term.” “The above does not mean that this obligation will not be subject to constant scrutiny by the Court, during the period in which it is pending.” In this regard, the Commission deemed that “there should be an initial assessment of compliance with these obligations when the State submits its [first] report on compliance, one year after notification of the Judgment”; regarding to the evidence that must be supplied to be a beneficiary of this reparation measure, the Commission deemed that “the text of the Judgment is clear and it constitutes a suitable instrument for direct implementation of the obligations established by the Court. In this