16 Ombudsman and the representatives, during which the state entity expressed its willingness to perform the diagnosis of the situation on the land, but it expressed that it did not have enough funds to transfer the people in charge of carrying out the study, reason for which it agreed to consult with the Presidential Human Rights and Humanitarian International Law Program in order to obtain the necessary funds. They received no additional information regarding the fulfillment of these commitments. Likewise, they mentioned that the protection measures stated in the Judgment not only referred to the public police force, but also to measures regarding the access infrastructure, the adjustment of health and education centers, and plumbing and sewage. On the other hand, they stated that two associations of Special Surveillance and Private Security Services, authorized by the public police force, are active at Pueblo Bello. However, that they did not understand why a town as small as Pueblo Bello, which has around 850 habitants and the presence of more than fifty police and army officials, required the services provided by private surveillance. They added that the State should take “all measures necessary to prevent the continuance of the operation of […] companies of this nature that have contributed to the execution of facts such as those of the present case.” 33. That with regard to the obligation to implement an adequate housing program for the next of kin that return to Pueblo Bello, the State informed that it was carrying out the internal procedures in order to define the entity in charge of executing this reparation measure and to recollect information on the people that were beneficiaries of a housing plan after the occurrence of the facts of the case. The State also indicated that it was not aware of which people wished to return to Pueblo Bello. At the hearing the State appreciated the comprehension of the next of kin and their representatives when allowing it “to find a solution to the prohibition the State has on building housing projects directly,” reason for which it referred to the possibility of granting a pecuniary subsidy to the beneficiaries, as a way to comply with the requirements agreed on by the parties in compliance of the Judgment. 34. That the representatives indicated that the State has not complied with its obligation and that pursuant with that stated in the Judgment of Interpretation (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), the State shall provide those who wish to return with a housing plan as a way of mitigating the damages caused by the displacement. At the hearing they stated that the solution proposed by the State would be accepted in the understanding that the money to be received, may be destined to the restoration of the homes, reaffirming said acceptance in its final observations, upon stating that “they are awaiting the specific modality of compliance with this measure through a mechanism that makes compliance easier, but that does not modify its purpose.” 35. That the Commission stated that regardless of the fact that it be or not aware of the next of kin who wanted to return to Pueblo Bello, the State should have already set in motion specific actions in order to comply with that ordered by the Court. It indicated that it valued the information regarding the agreement between the State and the representatives to grant a pecuniary subsidy to the beneficiaries and, in that sense, it hopes that the matters pending in order to comply with said measure can be executed as soon as possible. 36. That the Court considers it necessary that the state authorities know the will of the next of kin of the disappeared persons and those deprived of their life, as well as other former habitants who were displaced, to return to Pueblo Bello. The State is who shall carry out the necessary actions to determine the aforementioned and the representatives shall offer all possible collaboration in this sense. If that is the will of