-46. The brief of September 26, 2006, in which the representatives forwarded their observations on the State’s report of May 24, 2006. In summary, they indicated the following: (a) Regarding the obligation to investigate: that the “appeal for review submitted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor” had been admitted by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 19, 2006. However, the soldiers had not been notified of this decision. They stated that, even though “the processing [of the appeal would take] a long time and depended on several steps involving long time limits,” it could lead to the effective and genuine investigation of the State agents who participated in the events, [and is] one of the measures that gives most hope to the next of kin of the victims.” They also indicated that “the information on this issue provided by the State is inadequate,” since they “are unaware of any progress made” in the other investigations that might lead to the elucidation of the events; (b) Regarding the search for the remains of the victims, they “were present at the first search procedure undertaken in this case in November 2005.” “The judicial commission and those who participated in the procedure inspected the property and the places where a search or retrospective survey [would possibly be carried out] in an initial procedure.” Even though it had been agreed to obtain the title of the property, the Prosecutor’s Office (Fiscalía) had failed to do this. “To date the exploration procedure has not been carried out, and the Prosecutor’s Office has argued that it lacks the necessary resources.” The next of kin sent a communication to the Office of the Prosecutor General (Fiscalía General) “in order to insist directly that the search procedure continue.” To the surprise of the representatives, this “was remitted to [the Prosecutor 17 of Bucaramanga, in other words] a different official to the one in charge of the investigation”; moreover, [the representatives] do not understand] “why and for what purpose a new investigation was opened”; (c) Regarding the monument to the memory of the victims, they stated that, on October 5, 2006, a meeting would be held to hear the proposal of an artist who had received the “34 proposals of the next of kin” regarding the monument at a previous meeting, and that the Bucaramanga Mayor’s Office had mentioned “a site where the monument could be erected”; (d) i. ii. iii. Regarding the medical and psychological treatment: On June 27, 2006, a meeting was held with representatives of the Ministry of Social Security, the Vice President of the Republic, the representatives of the next of kin, and the expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, who the type of treatment that was required in order to achieve its objective as a reparation; “The representatives of the Ministry of Social Security recognized that the basic health programs were very limited as regards psychosocial treatment, that the Ministry’s personnel needed training, and that it was necessary to form a coordinating team, but that at the moment the Ministry did not have one, and lacked the necessary resources.” The Colombian Commission of Jurists made several proposals regarding ways in which a diagnosis of the beneficiaries of the measure could be made in order to determine how to implement it; At a meeting on September 18, 2006, the representatives of the Ministry of Social Security informed the representatives of the victims that psychosocial treatment would commence in the municipality of La Dorada, where a large family group was located, and that “it had not been able to hold the meeting with all the next of kin owing to lack of resources.” The representatives