3 the Colombian Commission of Jurists, the purpose being to find a solution to the legal inconveniences that arise from the filing of an appeal for review in this case”, and “signaled its willingness to continue working on the search for legal pathways that allow compliance with this obligation”; and regarding finding the remains of the victims and delivering them to their next of kin: f) since previous searches have produced negative results, a new search for the mortal remains is under consideration. 4. The briefs of June 15, 2004, February 3, 2005, June 13, 2005, September 26, 2006, and January 14, 2008, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their comments on the information filed by the State and which referred to the status of compliance with the Judgment. In their last brief the representatives observed: regarding monetary reparations: a) with regard to Ana Vitelma Ortiz, they reported that the Defense Minister ordered the payment of interest, which had been received by the Colombian Commission of Jurists in 2006, but that had yet to be handed over to the beneficiary. In that regard, in their last report, the representatives indicated that they were able to make contact with Mrs. Ana Vitelma Ortiz and that they were waiting for her to give them her bank account number in order to process the payment to her; b) in the case of Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez, the representatives indicated that they do not have the information necessary to confirm the State’s assertions, as they do not represent said person; c) with regard to Iván Andrés Caballero Parra, the representatives indicated that, considering the information supplied by the State on the conditions under which the new CD was invested in, “the necessary measures were not taken, such as required by the Court, to make the investment in a way that would guarantee the greatest benefit to the minor”. Specifically, they referred to the different exchange rates with the dollar and to the interest rate, regarding which they indicated that, “the rate of the agreed-upon CD for Iván Andrés was 2.125% annually, compared to the original CD which was 6.25% annually. This means that the CD was not extended – rather that it was recreated under conditions clearly less favorable to the interests of the [beneficiary]”. Finally, they added that it was “incomprehensible” that the CD was still in force in the Bank, “given that Iván Andrés, as was known by the State, became an adult on December 12, 2006”, and that although that date was reached, the State “has not redeemed the CD, nor turned over the interest that the money may have produced during the last year”; with regard to the criminal investigation: d) since the Order of the Court dated November 27, 2003, the State has not supplied the Tribunal with substantive information on the measures it has taken to single out, prosecute, and punish those responsible for these acts. Regarding the meetings called with the purpose of seeking the removal of