4 later, the appeal was admitted […]”. Based on the foregoing, the representatives pointed out that the State has not complied with this obligation, inasmuch as the State has not exhausted all the measures at its disposal to expedite the corresponding legal proceedings. 9. That the measures adopted by the State must be deemed pertinent so that the Attorney General’s Office can file an appeal for review regarding the final decisions delivered by the domestic courts on this matter. This Tribunal takes notes that the Supreme Court of Justice admitted said appeal on July 16, 2007, thus the corresponding legal procedure is being followed. To such regard, the Tribunal considers it is necessary that Colombia informs on the processing and results achieved after such decision was made and also, submits detailed and complete information on the other measures that are being adopted in order to investigate the facts of the case. * * * 10. That, with regard to the medical care and psychological treatment ordered by the Court in its Judgment, the State informed that such care and treatment could not be provided as suggested in the Judgment, since the next-of-kin of Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez Soler do no longer reside in the country due to security reasons. In the brief of September 5, 2007, the State suggested that, despite the fact that it was requested on two occasions, the representatives could not provide information regarding the beneficiaries that still live in the country and want to receive the service in order to make an “offer to other State’s entities through which they c[ould] receive medical care and psychological treatment". As to the medical care and psychological treatment for Mr. Gutiérrez Soler and his son, the State informed that it had already paid in full the amount determined by the Court to such end. 11. That the representatives pointed out that the sum of money ordered by the Tribunal in order to provide medical and psychological treatment to Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez Soler and his son “was actually settled by the State”, for they considered that “there is no issue pending discussion” in such respect. Moreover, the representatives expressed that even if it is true that “some of the people who were impaired […] had the urgent need to leave the country and that that precludes the compliance with this measure”, during the time that those persons were in the country, they had not received the appropriate treatment. In view of this situation, the representatives requested the Court to issue a ruling regarding “an alternate measure to satisfy the State's obligation to compensate the people who are abroad". Furthermore, they repeated that this measure “also protects some of the persons who are living in the country, namely: María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez, Leydi Caterín Gutiérrez Peña and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano, for whom this obligation has not been complied with”. 12. That the Commission considered it is vital that the State devotes its best efforts to contact those beneficiaries residing in the country, either directly or through their representatives, so that the medical treatment is provided as soon as possible. 13. That according to the argument of the State and the representatives, Colombia delivered the sum of money determined by the Tribunal to cover all reasonable expenses