4 a) the Colombian Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted a list of 28 ongoing investigations, of which 16 are murder cases. Six of these cases are not related to the Communities protected by the provisional measures; in the murder cases of three-year old Ricardo Guaraona and Mr. Cristóbal Hinostroza, there is no correspondence between the crime and the alleged perpetrator; of the four investigations regarding forced displacement, only two are related to the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó basins; and as regards the two proceedings instituted for the illegal planting of oil palm, only one is related to the Communities; b) the State confuses perpetrators and cases involving other population groups with the cases in which the victims are members of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. All cases are at a preliminary stage, which means that there is no formal investigation; c) as regards the investigations into the murder of the child Hermin Garces Torres and the injuries suffered by Mr. Víctor Garces Renteria, whether an arrest warrant has been issued or evidence other than testimonies has been gathered is unknown. Regarding the murder of Mr. Pedro Murillo, he would have allegedly been killed by the army, who would have shot him while totally defenseless. To date, there is no information about what the military did with his body since it was not handed over to his partner, and “[the fact that] the investigation of the case is in the hands of the military criminal justice system […] limits […] the right to know the truth and the right to justice;” d) the State has completely disregarded important aspects regarding the procedure to be followed when conducting criminal investigations, as a mechanism that prevents the repetition of irreparable damage; therefore, a commission should be created to evaluate the measures adopted by the State in relation to the investigations; e) on September 4, 2005, the State attempted to give the three satellite telephones to delegates of the Community Councils, who refused to receive them because the Communities believed that “the communication system must be integrated […] with a system of prevention and follow-up;” f) pressure on the Communities from business and paramilitary strategies continue. Ninety-three percent of the areas planted with oil palm are within the communal property of the beneficiaries. Therefore, “the […] Court should make explicit reference regarding the investigation into the illegal planting of African palm in the provisional measures […] in order to create the conditions for the return of displaced persons,” and g) the actions taken by Army and Police Forces are inefficient insofar as the members of the Communities continue to be the target of military operations, threats, harassment and intimidation by civilian armed groups and African palm plantation businessmen. 15. The brief of the Commission, received on September 19, 2005, requesting an extension until September 30, 2005 to submit its comments on the State report. The communication of the Secretariat of September 20, 2005, whereby, following the President’s instructions, the Commission was granted the extension. 16. The note of the Secretariat of October 18, 2005, whereby, following the President’s orders, the Inter-American Commission was called upon to submit its comments on the State report of August 8, 2005, which was due on September 30, 2005. In addition, the State was requested to submit its report, which was due on October 8, 2005.