adjustments, so that it would inform the Court when it received the vouchers for the disbursements made. 45. Reiterating its previous findings (supra considering paragraphs 27 to 30), the Court considers it inappropriate that the representatives of the victims had to file additional domestic lawsuits in order to obtain compliance with an operative paragraph of the Judgment, regarding which this Court had even endorsed an agreement between the representatives and the State in July 2009, for the award of a pecuniary subsidy to the victims in substitution for the housing program that had been ordered. Nevertheless, the Court assesses positively the terms in which the application for amparo was decided by the Fourth Sentencing Chamber of the Administrative Court of Antioquia, and this has ended the differences regarding the way in which the agreement should be implemented. As indicated by the State, the pecuniary adjustment has already been made and is about to be paid out, so that the Court considers that the State has complied partially with this measure of reparation and awaits the information and documentation indicating that the pending payments have been made. e.2 Regarding the payment to Marcelino Barrera 46. Regarding Marcelino Barrera, whose measure of reparation was ordered by the Court under No. 49 of Annex III, and Héctor Builes, the representatives were informed by these two men that, when the massacre in El Aro occurred, Mr. Barrera was, indeed, an inhabitant of El Aro, but merely as a tenant of a house for which Héctor Builes possessed the ownership title. When the house was set on fire, Mr. Barrera lost all his household goods and the contents of a store that operated in the house. The representatives only received this information when they had commenced the formalities for the beneficiaries to sign the express acceptance of the agreement of substitution by the 135 MLMWF, which would be forwarded to the Court in order to substitute the measure. When the parties communicated this situation, they also indicated that they were in agreement and had made a verbal agreement that Mr. Barrera would receive the reparation to be paid out to the titleholder Mr. Builes who, in turn, would recognize to Mr. Barrera the loss of his household goods and the contents of the store. Héctor Builes died at the beginning of 2011 and his 11 heirs wanted to renew, in writing and in the same terms, the agreement that their father had reached with Marcelino Barrera. Accordingly, they informed Fonvivienda of the facts and asked that, temporarily, it abstain from making the payment in favor of Mr. Barrera, in order to give the parties time to sign a prior agreement. Subsequently, Mr. Barrera informed the heirs of Héctor Builes that he was not willing to make the same agreement with them that he had reached with their father. The representatives provided information on the ownership deeds of the property that Marcelino Barrera occupied, but indicated that it was not up to them to resolve the dispute between the parties. They were also informing Fonvivienda that the parties had not reached an agreement. 47. The Court observes that the actual situation must be resolved by the competent domestic authorities. The Court will not continue to monitor this aspect. e.3 Regarding the situation of “Carlos Mendoza�� 48. The representatives asked the Court for clarification regarding a name under No. 17 of Annex II of the Judgment which contains the list of those who lost possessions in El Aro (according to paragraph 125.81 of the Judgment), victims of the violation of the right to property. After making inquiries, the representatives have concluded that, in the village of El Aro, there is not and never has been a person who responds to the name of simply 18