develop a radio program, the content of which would be agreed on with the victims. 220 Additionally, the State undertook to make a payment towards the expenses of substantiating the procedure before the Inter-American Commission. All necessary steps to comply with the undertakings made in the agreement should have been taken during the first quarter of 2008, although the agreed time frames could be extended by mutual agreement of the parties if a justified reason, force majeure, or unforeseen circumstances were verified.221 130. Under the said addendum of April 14, 2008, certain undertaking were expanded, in particular: the construction of a new monument instead of the restoration of the previous one; the modification of the place where the commemorative plaque would be placed, and psychosocial assistance as part of the integral reparation.222 131. According to information provided by the Commission, the State has implemented some measures of reparation. Thus, on July 26, 2012, 252 family units received the agreed compensation. Regarding the other measures of reparation that formed part of the friendly settlement agreement, the parties and the Commission both indicated that the State had complied with the public act to acknowledge responsibility, the broadcast of a radio program, and the reimbursement of procedural expenses to FAMDEGUA. Owing to the failure to comply with the other measures of reparation, the representatives had advised the Commission of their intention not to continue with the friendly settlement procedure and asked it to issue the corresponding merits report.223 132. Although, ultimately, the agreement had not been endorsed by the Commission, in the Court’s opinion the signature of the agreement and the subsequent actions of the parties are relevant when deciding reparations. In particular, the Court will assess the measures of reparation that were implemented by the State and, then, analyze the need to grant additional measures based on the requests presented by the Commission and the representatives, its case law in this regard, and the corresponding arguments of the State.224 B. Injured party 133. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[e]stablish a mechanism that, to the greatest extent possible, enables the complete identification of each and every one of the victims of all the violations established in this case and to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the reparations determined in th[e] merits report are awarded to all the said victims.” 134. The representatives made the same request and asked the Court to order the State to create a consolidated list of victims of the massacre of the village of Los Josefinos. 135. The State indicated that, derived from the friendly settlement procedure before the Commission, a consolidated list of victims of the massacre of Los Josefinos already existed. Cf. Friendly settlement agreement, Massacre of the village of “Los Josefinos,” Petition 1139/04 of December 18, 2007 (evidence file, folios 2439 a 2442). 220 Cf. Friendly settlement agreement, Massacre of the village of “Los Josefinos,” Petition 1139/04 of December 18, 2007 (evidence file, folio 2443). 221 222 2416). Cf. Addendum of April 14, 2008, to the Friendly settlement agreement of December 18, 2007 (evidence file, folio Cf. Inter-American Commission, Merits Report 16/19, Case of 12,991, Massacre of the village of Los Josefinos with regard to Guatemala, para. 49 (merits file, folio 36). 223 Cf. Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 26. 224 41