9 contract celebrated in the present case included some cancellation clauses that would allow the cemetery to remove the body. On the other hand, they considered “the time the State has taken to comply this obligation, which should have been fulfilled in a 15day term, as completely inadmissible.” 31. That the Inter-American Commission observed that complying with this obligation under the figure of an usufructuary right, instead of the transfer of control through donation, as it had committed to doing so in the Memorandum of Understanding, “would generate the risk that said usufruct could be eventually revoked.” It pointed out that the present is an obligation that the Court “considered so urgent that it ordered that the State fulfill it within a very brief term of fifteen days, and it is, additionally, an obligation that due to its simplicity and specificity should not be the object of continuous supervision.” 32. That during the public hearing for monitoring compliance the Inter-American Commission warned that the State informed of the existence of pending processes before the Ministry of Justice for compliance of the present obligation and requested that it inform “when these pending processes will be satisfied and complied with in order to conclude this matter,” especially since they are “processes before the […] State […] itself.” 33. That the Tribunal values the steps taken by the State in order to make progress in compliance with this reparation measure. However, the Court observes that having more than five years gone by since the expiration of the present obligation, it is still pending compliance. Regarding the discrepancies in what refers to the modality in which this reparation measure shall be fulfilled, the Court recalls that the State’s obligation consists in “providing a place” to Mrs. María Teresa de Jesús Pérez so she can bury her son’s body in a cemetery close to her home. The Tribunal considers that the usufruct or any other figure Paraguay may consider appropriate can satisfy this reparation measure, provided it guarantees that said place is being given to Mrs. Perez in a permanent manner and that it will not be taken away from her for reasons such as lack of payment of possible taxes or tariffs that, in any case, shall be covered by the State. Therefore, the Court considers it necessary that Paraguay in its next report refer to: a) the appropriateness of the figure of usufruct with the characteristics necessary to comply with this reparation measure; b) the state of the processes necessary to obtain the definitive municipal exoneration of the tariffs or taxes on the mentioned usufruct, and c) the construction of the mausoleum whose completion, according to the Time Line, is scheduled for February 2010. * * * 34. That, with regard to the obligation to guarantee the life, integrity, and security of the people who testified and their next of kin (fifteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State informed that it became aware “of harassment by police officers over two youngsters […] on four occasions.” Based on that it started the correspondin administrative preliminary proceedings that are in the stage of conclusions and rulings and their result will be informed to the Tribunal pursuant with that stated in the Time Line. It added that it designed “instruction manuals addressed to all police officers in which it unequivocally established […] the conditions under which the arrest of people is acceptable [and] the procedure for the control of vehicles and the inspection of persons.” Likewise, it informed that the Ministry of the Interior authorized a Center for Citizen Complaints, for the channeling of complaints regarding police procedures carried out on the wrong side of the law.