7 identification of […] the risk factors suffered by the persons that they represent [….] since 2001, […] all of them members of the Community Councils of Curvaradó y Jiguamiandó,” whom, according to their judgment, “are the beneficiaries of the Provisional Measures.” Finally, it requested the Court to “take any measures to allow the full and effective enforcement of the protection measures of which the inhabitants of the Humanitarian and Biodiversity Zones are the beneficiaries that [they] represent.” 15. That the State referred to the four criteria suggested by the Inter-American Commission for the determination and identification of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (supra Having Seen 13). In that sense, as a general observation, it considered that the Commission did not “precise with sufficient criteria” to permit the determination and identification of the beneficiaries of the measures in a collective sense. Additionally, it indicated, inter alia: a) regarding the first criterion, that the Commission had lacked precision in the terms, because the Law 70 of 1993 does not assign denominations such as “Minor Community Councils” or “Major Community Councils” and that, in any event, what existed, by its own denomination of the communities of the Jiguamiandó River and Curbaradó River, was the “Major Community Councils.” Furthermore, the State denied the existence of official statistics related to the Community Councils, since precisely “one of the problems faced in the conformation of [such] is the displacement of the inhabitants of the zone and the errors on the censuses.” Likewise, it pointed out that in November 2000, “the Community of Curvaradó was formed by 642 families (2415 persons) and […] the Community of Jiguamiandó [by] 483 families (2368 persons).” Regarding that particular matter, the State informed that it currently is planning a census process within the Communities, and gave information about the procedures for its development within the communities of Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó. Finally, it pointed out that “[t]his commitment is developed in a extremely delicate context; in part due to a conflict within the community, particularly evident in the discrepancies of the criteria of appointment and membership to the community councils; but also because the community links have been disabled, exposing the persons in both councils to a regrettable uprooting;” b) regarding the second criterion, which was not concordant with that established by the Court in its Order of March 6, 2003, since in this Order it had also considered the displaced persons as beneficiaries of the present provisional measures. Finally, the State emphasized the difficulties that it would have to adopt this suggested criterion, such as: identify with certainty the people that have remained in the territory since the date of the aforementioned Order; the determination of which authority would be the one charged with establishing such permanence, and the differences within the Community that could arise while applying such criterion, as this could deepen their division; c) regarding the third criterion, that it shall not have further relevance, due to the fact that “it is only the two legal representatives of the Community Councils who could attend the judicial hearing.” It added that if the Inter-American Commission“refers to another type of participation, the State of Colombia wants to point out that the criterion, interpreted in this manner, constitutes a strictly excluding and discriminatory parameter, since the reasons not to have participated in the judicial complaints may refer to different circumstances, one of them —for example— could have [been] the lack of knowledge of the initiation of judicial procedures for the recuperation of their territory, a situation that could have taken place with the population that is in a situation of displacement,” and