-5the National Hospital Network. The representatives expressed the convenience of signing an agreement with a specialized private health organization; d) in the meeting held on June 26, 2005 they requested that a study be carried out to determine which would be the conditions offered by the State to the next of kin of the victim Antonio Florez Contreras so that they could return to Colombia, if they decided to do so; and e) they expressed that they would be in conditions to receive the payment as presented, as long as Colombia assumes the transaction cost of making the security effective before its expiration, that is, that the next of kin of the victims receive the amount of money set in Colombian Pesos or dollars of the United States of America. 5. The brief of July 26, 2005 and its Appendixes, through which the State forwarded a report on compliance with the Judgment, in response to that stated in the twenty-third operative paragraph of the same. In synthesis, Colombia expressed the following: a) regarding the obligation to investigate, through the order of May 7, 2005 the Specialized Public Prosecutor of the Unit of Human Rights and Humanitarian International Law included the Judgment of the Court in the case file it is following before that entity (established fact 87), “having that act in itself a reparatory nature because it proves the interiorization of the international decision.” Likewise, it indicated that, according to the principles of legality and res judicata, it cannot “analyze” the actions and decisions of the military criminal justice with regard to the judicial situation of the former soldiers investigated, that it must present copies to the Comptroller General of the Nation of the judgment of the Inter-American Court so that, once it has analyzed it and if it considers it appropriate, it may start the action of revision within the criminal process started by the military criminal justice. Besides, the Judgment of the Court was included in the administrative-law proceedings followed before the Administrative Court of Santander; b) regarding the search for the remains of the victims, through auto of May 7, 2005 the Special Prosecutor considered that it would proceed to reopen the investigation in its preliminary stages in order to allow the development of investigative activities tending to achieve the location of said remains, “without detriment of the fact that upon the appearance of elements of judgment that may compromise the responsibility in the facts of any citizen, the corresponding criminal action be started,” and decided to “reopen the investigation in preliminary stages that was started for the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Alvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Javier Rodríguez, Israle Pundor Quintero, Angel Maria Barrera, Antonio Flores Contreras, Carlos Riatiga, Victor Manuel Ayala, Alirio Chaparro Murillo, Huber Perez, Alvaro Camargo, Rubén Emilio Pineda, Gilberto Ortiz Sarmiento, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Luis Hernando Jáuregui, Juan Bautista Alberto Gómez, Luis Domingo Sauza, Juan Alberto Montero, and José Ferney Fernandez, according to the facts occurred in the month of October 1987, in the surroundings o the road to the city of Cúcuta which leads to Medellín.” Said investigation has number 087-A and in it several tests have been ordered tending to find the remains of the victims, among which we can mention, “work order to the human rights