-5expressed their “concern because the proposed method of treatment will not allow the [health] professionals to have the complete frame of reference of the case and of the next of kin in order to be able to design an adequate holistic treatment strategy.” They indicated that the Ministry had undertaken to carry out several measures, which it had failed to implement; (e) Regarding the creation of conditions for the return of the family of Mr. Florez Contreras, the representatives stated that the State must comply with what it agreed upon at the first follow-up meeting as regards the assessment of the risk and threat level of a certain town in Colombia. They also indicated that they agreed with the Inter-American Commission that only the effectiveness and fruitful conclusion of the investigations into the facts of the case would “have a substantial impact on the risk factors that […] caused” the said next of kin to go into exile; (f) Regarding the measures of protection for the individuals who testified before the Court, they indicated that the State’s comments “are surprising” (supra Having seen paragraph 3(e)), given that the provisional measures have been expanded and continue in force; and (g) Regarding the payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victims, they stated that “90% was effectively paid to and received by the beneficiaries” and that payment of the remaining 10% of the compensation remained pending. 7. The briefs of August 16 and October 6, 2006, in which the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the State’s report of May 24, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraphs 2 and 3). In summary, it indicated the following: (a) Regarding the obligation to investigate: “it is significant that, over the period covered by the report (more than one year), [the filing of the appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice] is the only significant action taken by the mechanisms entrusted by the State with fulfilling its obligation to investigate.” This situation “leads to the presumption that the level of compliance with this obligation is unsatisfactory” and that it will not be complied with within a reasonable time; (b) Regarding the obligation to seek and deliver the remains of the victims, it indicated that the procedure undertaken in November of 2005 “did not produce conclusive results, and no follow-up measure had taken place after nearly a year.” As a result, “the actions undertaken do not have the necessary force and were not of the required nature to comply with this obligation within a reasonable time”; (c) Regarding the creation of the conditions that would permit the return of the next of kin of the victim Flores Contreras, it “regret[ted] the absence in the State’s report of studies detailing the risk to which this family would be subjected, as well as a proposed strategy to counter such risk” since, without these elements, the family will not be able to “make an informed decision about their return”; (d) Regarding the erection of a monument to the memory of the victims, it “appreciate[d] the measures taken and the particular emphasis on collaboration with the injured parties, and hoped that this measure would be completed soon”; (e) Regarding the placing of a commemorative plaque, it stated that it “underst[ood] that the parties consider this to be secondary to the erection of the monument”;