24. The State informed that it convened different entities, which are part of the working group of the provisional measures, to a follow-up meeting, which was organized to be held on May 19, 2009. However, it indicated that the indigenous Governor expressed the concern of the Kankuamo Indigenous People about the absence of the Mayor of Valledupar and the Governor of Cesar; therefore, it requested to set a new date for the meeting if the officers with decision-making power were not present. The State reiterated its will to follow-up the compliance with the provisional measures and it requested the indigenous town council to assess the assistance of different delegates of the entities. However, the State sustained that the indigenous town council maintained his position. Moreover, it mentioned that, since the month of June 2010, it has maintained contact with the representatives of the beneficiaries in order to agree on a date to hold the follow-up meeting of these provisional measures. Nevertheless, due to commitments previously established by the beneficiaries, their representatives and the officers of the different State’s entities, there was no agreement as to the date for the meeting. The State also mentioned that it has taken actions to hold the meeting on December 21, 2010. However, “for reasons beyond the control of the State”, this meeting was never held. The State mentioned that it was taking steps in order to organize the meeting for February 2011. At the public hearing, it informed on a follow-up meeting of the provisional measures that was held on June 10, 2011, in which “a series of complaints were filed by the community”. In this respect, it indicated that what the community has stated was that "on occasions, it has noted the presence of alleged members of criminal groups in its territory", but that what it was verified was that the complaints filed with the army were timely addressed. In said meeting, the State made several commitments with the beneficiaries. Moreover, it indicated that on June 22, 2011, at the premises of the indigenous house of Valledupar, a meeting was held with the National Police and the Indigenous Governor of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community, “in order to follow-up and honor the commitments made at the meeting" of June 10, 2011. Afterwards, the State indicated that on July 12, 2011, another meeting with the beneficiaries was scheduled. In this respect, said date was proposed to the Indigenous Governor of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community. However, said person proposed, as new date for the meeting, July 14, 2011, and then he rescheduled it “until next date”. On July 18, 2011, the Indigenous Governor would send a new proposal. 25. The representatives indicated that all the authorities of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community and the representatives attended the meeting scheduled for May 19, 2009. However, they emphasized that the authorities with decision-making power did not attend the meeting, such as the Mayor of the Municipality of Valledupar, the Governor of the Department of Cesar and the Director of the Presidential Program on Human Rights of the Vice-Presidency of the Republic, among others. They expressed their concern about the attitude adopted by the Human Rights Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “who indicated that her entity was unable to convene a new meeting of the working group to follow-up the provisional measures of the Kankuamo People, alleging problems with the agenda”. Moreover, they expressed their concern about the fact that from the State's entities, it does not spring the intention to resume the commitments made at the meetings for dialogue and consensus. Consequently, they indicated that the Kankuamo Indigenous Community has convened, once again, the State to give compliance with the agenda scheduled. However, they indicated that they have not received an answer from the authorities. According to the last piece of information received, the representatives sustain that, in the last three years, only on two occasions, they had held meetings with the State’s authorities to give compliance with the implementation of these measures and the commitments made by the State. 26. Initially, the Commission noted that it did not have information related to the possible reactivation of the Meeting for Dialogue and Consensus. In addition, it mentioned that it considered “it was essential to establish fluid communication with the 12