contributes to making reparation to the victims and shows society that justice has been done.15 17. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the measure of reparation regarding the obligation to investigate the facts of this case is pending compliance. Therefore, it considers it essential that, within the period established in Operative paragraph 2 of this Order, the State submit current, detailed and complete information on all the steps taken to ensure compliance with this measure of reparation, the results obtained, as well as a copy of the supporting documentation, so that the Court can verify that the investigations are being carried out with due diligence, in accordance with the purpose of this measure of reparation. B. Obligation to conduct, within a reasonable period, a search for the remains of the victims, and if possible, return them to their next of kin 18. The State reported that “considering the specific and technical requirements involved in the search for remains,” the Centro Único Virtual de Identificación [Virtual Identification Center] (hereinafter “CUVI” for its acronym in Spanish) will support the Attorney General’s Office in this task. This Center will implement the “National Plan to Search for Disappeared Persons,” which consists of four phases: 1) gathering information; 2) analysis and verification of the information; 3) recovery, technical-scientific assessment and identification; and 4) final whereabouts of remains. In this regard, Colombia indicated that it had provided a copy of this document in the context of monitoring compliance with the Judgment of this Court in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. The State described some of the procedures carried out by CUVI at the end of 2009 and throughout 2010, during the first phase of the search plan. These included taking samples, gathering information, holding meetings with the representatives and the victims, locating witnesses on the “property and areas surrounding El [D]iamante Farm […] and in nearby hamlets and villages” and conducting verification studies on the banks of the Magdalena river. This last procedure concluded “with the suggestion to carry out further investigative studies along the banks of the river” as the previous studies “only included 15% of the area along the Magdalena River.” In January 2011, the State reported that in June 2010, CUVI and the Technical Unit of the Human Rights Investigation Group were ordered to “proceed to carry out the second phase of the search plan.” Finally, in September 2011, Colombia indicated that the Attorney General’s Office and CUVI “have carried out all the actions required to find the whereabouts of the victims” and are coordinating “the start of the implementation of phases II, III and IV of the search plan.” 19. The representatives stated that compliance with this measure of reparation “is closely linked to the investigation,” and therefore the State should gather additional statements from human sources who may indicate the whereabouts of the victims’ remains. They also noted that there has been "no significant progress” in the implementation of this measure of reparation since October 2010, as no further action has been taken in this regard. Given that “the crime was committed 24 years ago and there have been enormous delays in implementing the Search Plan,” the representatives said they “have well-founded fears that such measures are doomed to failure.” 15 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v.. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order to the Inter-American Court of January 27, 2009, considering para. 21, and Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and provisional measures. Order of the Court of November 22, 2011, considering paragraph 10. 8