-3(b) Regarding the search for the remains of the victims, it referred to a procedure undertaken in November 2005 when it ordered the exploration of the area where, according to relevant probative elements, the bodies of the 19 tradesmen had been abandoned. It also indicated the names of those who had taken part in the procedure and the security support provided; (c) Regarding the obligation to erect a monument to the memory of the victims, it indicated that, at a meeting held on May 19, 2006 “the procedure for the erection of the monument had been agreed upon,” and named the city chosen by the victims’ next of kin for the location of the monument; (d) Regarding the medical and psychological treatment, it indicated that, during the meeting held on May 19, 2006, “the Colombian Commission of Jurists submitted basic information on some of the victims’ next of kin and said that the public system did not have the capacity to provide them with the necessary care.” It also indicated that a meeting had been arranged with Carlos Beristain to “determine in greater detail the type of psychological treatment these persons need, in order to establish whether this treatment could be provided by the public system or [whether] it was necessary to seek the collaboration of private entities”; (e) Regarding the need to pay special attention to guaranteeing the live, safety and security of the persons who testified before the Court and their next of kin, it indicated that “it has no information that the life of any of the individuals who testified before the Court […] is in danger or that there is a need for any special measure of protection [and that] should it be informed of such a situation, it would take appropriate action”; (f) Regarding the payment of the compensation established in the judgment, it referred to the State entities that have been instructed to make the payments and indicated that, “owing to the complex budgetary procedure that the payment of this compensation represents for the State, 10% of the amount is currently pending”; (g) It made no mention in the report to the adoption of the actions necessary to locate the next of kin of Juan Bautista and Huber Pérez (whose second surname is possibly Castaño) and to deliver the reparations which correspond to them; and (h) Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it indicated that it had made the payment to the Colombian Commission of Jurists and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) on April 7, 2006. 4. The brief of July 18, 2007, and its appendixes, with which the representatives forwarded a copy of a communication sent to them by the Ministry of Defense concerning payment of the compensation to the permanent companion of the victim Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal, together with a copy of their reply. In the latter, they indicated, inter alia, that “since February [2006, they had sent] two extrajudicial statements to the Ministry confirming that Rosmira Arias Ortega had been his permanent companion.” 5. The notes from the Secretariat of the Court of August 4 and 16, 2006, in which, on the President’s instructions, it requested the representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) to submit their observations on the State’s report of May 24, 2006, as soon as possible, given that the allocated time had already expired (supra Having seen paragraphs 2 and 3).