purchase of a house. Given that the parties have asked the Court to endorse this agreement, the Court finds this pertinent, provided that the victims have expressly agreed to this and that it complies with the purpose of the reparation ordered in the Judgment. The State should provide information on the measures taken under the agreement, which should be executed within the time frame established in the Judgment for compliance with this obligation.”25 37. The State indicated that, during the meeting of March 2011, the Administration and the representatives agreed to make a joint request to Fonvivienda designed to make its decision more flexible so as to facilitate compliance with this measure; the request was forwarded on March 17, 2011, 38. According to the representatives, despite the State’s indication of its willingness to comply with the agreement, which the Court has endorsed, it had not complied with the agreement promptly, and in Decision 1460 of the Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, had imposed terms and conditions that were not in the agreement signed between the parties and endorsed by the Court. These terms and conditions were mainly aimed at handing out “agreements for real estate purchases,” which hindered compliance, because most of the beneficiaries had already taken out loans or had used the resources of the compensation granted by the Court for the non-pecuniary damage suffered to negotiate land, houses, possessions or other solutions that did not necessarily conform legally to the new formal requirements established by the State, but that were designed to resolve their housing problems, which, moreover, represented a life project that is especially deep-rooted in Colombians, whatever their social status. 39. The representatives argued that they were obliged to file an application for constitutional protection before the Administrative Court of Antioquia on August 2, 2011, against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, and the National Housing Fund (Fonvivienda), so that protection would be granted to the fundamental right to acquire a decent home, in connection with the right to a decent life and to the protection of the judicial guarantees, compliance with judicial decisions, and the right to receive reparation. 40. According to the Judgment of the Administrative Court of Antioquia that decided the application for protection under the Constitution, the positions of the State organs were as follows: a. The National Housing Fund (“Fonvivienda”) adduced that it had complied fully with its obligation to allocate the resources corresponding to the reparation ordered by the InterAmerican Court and endorsed by the victims’ representatives. It considered that, as beneficiaries of the decisions of the Inter-American Court, all the necessary prevention and assistance measures must be taken to ensure that the victims obtain, improve and, in general, satisfy, their guarantee of a house. b. In turn, Fonvivienda, by Decision No. 1460 of December 28, 2010, issued by the Coordinator of the Budget and Finance Group, destined the sum of 2,502,900,000 Colombian pesos, establishing in article 4 of this decision that the resources would be disbursed to each beneficiary in planned savings accounts and would remain immobilized until the signature of the public deed of the property had been certified by its registration before the Office for the Registration of Public Instruments. Therefore, compliance with the said conditions is extremely important for the beneficiaries and for the representatives of                                                              25 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 9, 2009, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 16