the victims. It also indicated that in August 2011, a letter had been sent to the legal representative of the Grupo Interdisciplinario de Derechos Humanos proposing that the procedure for disbursing the money be modified, provided that its investment in housing was guaranteed, a letter that had not been answered. Lastly, it considered that the amounts destined for the beneficiaries in order to comply with the reparation, should be those established in Decision No. 1460 of 2010, and not the value of the minimum wage for 2011. 41. The application for protection under the Constitution was decided in a ruling of August 23, 2011, ordering Fonvivienda to comply immediately, as follows: “execution of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2006, is ordered so as to render truly effective the reparation of the victims who lost their homes owing to the violent events that took place in the villages of El Aro and La Granja in the municipality of Ituango (Antioquia), and to end the prolonged and unjustified violation of their fundamental rights by the Colombian State.” Consequently, the Chamber ordered the National Housing Fund (Fonvivienda) that, within 30 working days from the writ of execution of this ruling, it pay to each of the victims who were petitioners in the amparo hearing, the sum of 135 current monthly legal minimum wages. It added that, “in order to ensure that the said sum complies with the purpose of the reparation established in the Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of July 1, 2006, the Colombian State may establish a collective compliance policy in order to guarantee compliance with the measures of reparation.” 42. Regarding the additional requisites that Fonvivienda is trying to impose on the beneficiaries, the Administrative Court established that “the Colombian State shall not require the beneficiaries to meet any additional requisite for the execution of the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, because this would be adding to and modifying the judgment of the high international court, to which the Colombian State is subject pursuant to the ‘Pact of San José, Costa Rica,’ signed and ratified by Colombia.” In addition, “since this is a case of the violation of fundamental rights, and in keeping with article 178 of the C.C.A., which refers to the pecuniary obligation of the Colombian State, given the omissive position of the State in complying with what was ordered by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in a judgment of July 1, 2006, which had been transformed into an Agreement that is now being executed, endorsed in the Order on monitoring compliance of July 7, 2009, the sum of 135 minimum wages shall be updated from the time at which the order should have been complied with until the moment at which the payment is made.” 43. The representatives advised that, based on the peremptory order issued by the Administrative Court of Antioquia, Fonvivienda was preparing to hand over the substituted pecuniary subsidy, annulling the above-mentioned requisites. In June 2012, it had still not handed over the pecuniary subsidy to the heirs of Luis Argemiro Arango and María Vásquez, who had died before the State had met its obligations. The heirs have filed inheritance proceedings and have already forwarded the documents to Fonvivienda, which has not paid out the funds yet. Also, the adjustment of the subsidies has not been paid out, because the agreement made between the parties was for the payment of 135 monthly legal minimum wages in force (hereinafter “MLMWF”) on the date that the payment was made. Based on the foregoing and taking into account that Fonvivienda paid out 135 MLMWF for 2010 rather than for 2012 as it has been making disbursements, payment of the said adjustment remains pending. 44. In its most recent report, the State advised that the entity responsible for handing over the substitute pecuniary subsidy had indicated that it had now made the pecuniary 17