13 d) e) f) those proven as such under domestic venue as foreseen in paragraph 237 of the Judgment”; regarding deadlines, the Court did not establish any fixed one because, as it underlined in paragraphs 275 and 276, certain conditions set forth in this Judgment are required to establish when the victims can appear before the State to demand their fulfillment. The deadline for the State to comply with this obligation is subject to the State completing the investigation, elucidating the facts, and punishing those responsible for the facts; the above also relates to the duty of the State to provide the security conditions required so that those next of kin who decide to return are able to do so. In this situation, the next of kin and their representatives must be informed of the concrete activities regarding verification and consultation that must be conducted by official representatives of the State, who must be civil officials. The purpose of this is for them to have sufficient information so that, after reaching a conclusion and preparing an evaluation, jointly conducted by those official representatives and the community regarding verification of said security conditions, the next of kin of the victims who are beneficiaries of the measures can appear before the State to claim this reparation. Said information must also be forwarded to the Court for it to periodically assess progress regarding those aspects and when there are appropriate conditions to fulfill said reparation. Once the next of kin who are beneficiaries have submitted the request, the State must comply with the housing plan within a year. Notwithstanding the above, the State must take such land use planning and other planning measures as may be required so that, when one or several next of kin decide to return to Pueblo Bello, there are the necessary means and conditions to address the requirements of the housing plan, and specifically, regarding to the beneficiaries of said reparation measure, the representatives expressed, inter alia, that: i. ii. iii. iv. it must be understood that the beneficiaries of the measure of reparation are all those recognized as such by the Court in the Judgment and those that the Court allowed to demonstrate said condition before the Colombian authorities. Since the Court did not set special conditions to be a beneficiary of said reparation measure, it is not possible to interpret that said limitations might go beyond what was established to recognize beneficiaries in the Judgment itself; even though the State referred to existence of a domestic legal provision that could impede possible compliance with this measure regarding to persons who already benefited from housing plans, it did not provide evidence of the existence of said provision, and it did not specify said provision; pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, the State cannot allege domestic legal provisions to refuse to comply with its obligation to implement and fulfill the reparation measures ordered by the Court, and if the State has recognized and benefited any of the next of kin in this case with a housing project, said next of kin cannot thereby be excluded from the measure of reparation, as said