Court, especially when this execution is the responsibility of the national judges. In this case, the function of the judicial organ is to ensure the prevalence of the American Convention and the rulings of this Court over domestic laws, interpretations and practices that prevent compliance with what the Court has ordered in a specific case.24 With regard to what has happened in relation to the execution of this measure of reparation ordered in favor of those who were displaced, the Court recalls that the control of conformity with the Convention is an obligation for all State organs and authorities. The Court assesses positively that the Superior Court of Antioquia, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Constitutional Court of Colombia have exercised a satisfactory, effective and comprehensive control of conformity with the Convention in order to ensure compliance with this aspect of the Judgment of the Court, as did the Administrative Court of Antioquia, in other circumstances analyzed below (infra considering paragraph 40), which is reflected in the legal findings of these courts and also denotes a dynamic jurisprudential dialogue. 31. According to the Constitutional Court’s final decision, the Inter-American Court observes that the State was obliged not to require the registration of the beneficiaries of the Judgment of July 1, 2006, as an additional requirement in order to comply with the reparations ordered in the latter. In addition, the Presidential Social Action Agency was ordered to inform the population affected by the Ituango Massacres, by local and national press, television and radio, including community radio, at least once a month on all the media and for six months, in peak airtime and programs, about the measures of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court for the persons individualized in this judgment and about the procedures to follow in order to access them, as well as about the comprehensive support programs for the displaced that the national Government offers for the rest of those affected by the violent events that took place in the villages of La Granja in 1996 and EL Aro in 1997, in the municipality of Ituango. The State has already taken measures in this regard. Also, this time frame does not postpone compliance with the Judgment of the InterAmerican Court, and therefore the beneficiaries must receive reparation as soon as they come forward to the entities and agencies designated by the Agency for this purpose throughout national territory. Lastly, the Constitutional Court urged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to exercise effective coordination including provide adequate and timely information to the different State entities responsible for attending the population displaced by the violence about the need to comply with the judicial rulings of the international organs; but, above all, about the implications for a particularly vulnerable population, owing to its situation of defenselessness, of non-compliance with their constitutional and legal obligation to guarantee this population the effective enjoyment and exercise of its rights. 32. Thus, the Court considers that the State has taken significant steps to locate the beneficiaries of the measure of reparation relating to guaranteeing conditions for the return of those displaced, and therefore finds that this aspect of the Judgment is being complied with. In this regard, the Court hopes that the remaining obstacles will be overcome shortly and requires the State to provide information on the specific measures taken in order to execute the plans and programs that have been established, the work plans and the results obtained; in particular individualized, detailed and updated information on the services that the beneficiaries are specifically, truly and effectively receiving.                                                              24 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of November 23, 2012, twenty-sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 20, 2013, seventy-third considering paragraph. 14