20. The Commission noted the procedures carried out by the State during 2010 and pointed out that, based on these, it was not possible to find “relevant and clear evidence for the identification of the victims’ mortal remains.” The Commission noted “with concern” that the search was still at the initial phase of the plan prepared by the State, and that in its last report Colombia did not mention the specific measures carried out to find the victims’ remains. 21. The Court recalls that in its Order of July 8, 2009, it considered “of vital importance to devise and develop, as soon as possible, a plan to search for the mortal remains, pursuant to specialized technical-scientific parameters, since the passage of time hinders the effective execution of this measure of reparation.” Therefore, the Court notes and appreciates the steps taken by the State to comply with this measure of reparation through the National Plan to Search for Disappeared Persons. Accordingly, based on the principle of procedural economy, the Court deems it appropriate to include in the record of this case the document containing the parameters and guidelines of said search plan, submitted to the Court in the context of monitoring compliance with the Court’s Judgment in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre, so that the representatives may submit any observations they consider relevant in this regard. 16 22. Also, the Court points out that the State has not provided detailed information on the actions or procedures carried out after 2010 to implement the aforementioned search plan, or on the possible results obtained. Furthermore, the Court notes with concern that after nearly eight years since the notification of this Judgment, the State has still not progressed beyond the first phase (gathering information) in the implementation of the search plan. According to the information provided by Colombia, the authorities in charge of this first phase recommended that further investigative work be carried on the banks of the Magdalena River, given that the efforts carried out previously were insufficient. Likewise, the Court notes that an order was issued in June 2010 to begin the second phase of the search, but according to the information provided, this has not yet happened. The Court understands the particular difficulties involved in finding the mortal remains of the victims in this case “[o]wing to the way in which the remains of the 19 tradesmen were treated and because [at the time the Judgment was issued] more than sixteen years ha[d] elapsed since their disappearance, it is very probable that it will be impossible to find their remains [… given] the omissions of the State at the time when it was still possible that the remains of the victims could be found, has meant that locating victims’ remains is now a difficult and improbable task.”17 However, the Court recalls that in its Judgment it considered proven that “Colombia did not conduct a genuine search for the remains of the victims,” and therefore deemed it reasonable and fair to order such a measure. 23. The Court considers that, although the State has initiated the first phase of the search plan for the remains of the victims, Colombia has not complied with the measure ordered by this Court to “conduct a genuine search, making every possible effort to determine with certainty what happened to the remains of the victims and, where possible, to return these to their next of kin.”18 Despite the State’s claim that it has carried out “all 16 The representatives of the victims in this case are the Colombian Commission of Jurists and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL); the representatives of the victims in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre are the Colectivo de Abogados [Lawyers’ Association] “José Alvear Restrepo” and CEJIL. 17 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 270. 18 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 271. 9