23. The representatives have expressed their willingness to collaborate with the State so that it may comply with its obligation to guarantee decent living conditions for all those displaced as a result of the Ituango massacres by adopting mechanisms aimed at their social and economic rehabilitation. These include support for plans for production projects, support for micro-enterprises, subsidies for the purchase of housing and/or land, and subsidies and special conditions for education. However, they indicated that the State had insisted in indicating that, owing to the representatives or the victims, it had not been able to meet its obligations, because it had been unable to identify the beneficiaries. As a result of the failure to comply with this measure of reparation, the representatives determined that it was necessary to file an application for amparo before the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Antioquia against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Presidential Social Action Agency, against the Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, and against the Ministry of Agriculture, in order to protect the right to a decent life and to justice. In first instance, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Antioquia rejected the objections filed by the State19 and ordered the protection of the fundamental rights to a decent life and to justice of the displaced persons listed in Annex 1 to the Judgment of the Court, from the municipality of Ituango, owing to the events that occurred in the villages of La Granja and El Aro in 1996 and 1997, respectively. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed all aspects of the judgment of the Superior Court of Antioquia. The Constitutional Court chose to review the ruling on protection and, on May 11, 2010, confirmed partially the judgments in first and second instance, by ordering the protection of the violated rights to a decent life and to justice, and annulling the aspect relating to the need to register the victims in the RUPD as a mechanism to guarantee them the reparation ordered by the Court. The representatives argued that the State had not complied with what the Inter-American Court had ordered as regards measures for the socio-economic rehabilitation of those displaced, or with the measures ordered by the Constitutional Court in relation to compliance with the international Judgment. 24. The Commission has expressed its concern because the State has alleged requirements under domestic law to postpone compliance with its international obligation; in particular, because the victims have merely been incorporated into the RUPD and measures have been taken to comply with a domestic rulings, which reveals that the State had not taken measures to comply with what the Court ordered, but appeared to be subordinating its obligations to the exhaustion of additional domestic proceedings filed by the representatives. In addition, it considered it essential that the State identify and provide details of the service that the beneficiaries are actually receiving. 25. In its last report, the State indicated that the safety situation in the area had improved, ostensibly due to the permanent military operations and actions of the National Army. This is corroborated by the office of the Delegate Ombudsman for Prevention of the Risk of Human Rights Violations, which did not include these areas in the June 2012 list concerning early warning systems. In addition, the State presented information on a plan to provide attention to the displaced population that was the subject of operative paragraph 17                                                              19 The representatives reported that the State had contested the ruling and had insisted that the representatives did not have legal standing; that the Judge of the amparo action was not empowered to rule on aspects related to a judgment of the Inter-American Court, and that, in the case of those displaced, the requirements established by constitutional case law in order to apply for amparo had not been complied with. The Social Action Agency argued that, even though the Constitutional Court had reiterated that the forced displacement was a de facto situation that did not require recognition by any authority, the legislator had imposed this as a requirement to accede to the benefits of registration on the Unified Registry of Displaced Population (RUPD), so that it was possible “to establish the truth” of the facts recounted. 10