57 rape women, kill people in the area and threaten the inhabitants of the village of Chichupac (infra paras. 222 and 223). 184. Second, with regard to members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities who lost the documentation proving their ownership of their lands and property as a result of the events of this case, there is no evidence that the State has established methods for them to obtain such documents or prove their ownership by alternative means (supra para. 98). 185. Third, during the public hearing, the representatives reported that up until the end of March of 2016 there was a municipal office in Rabinal of the National Reparations Program (PNR), which was closed. The State did not dispute the truth of this information. However, in its final arguments it stated that in order to reverse the situation of displacement, in 2008 it prepared a survey of the community of Chichupac in order to gather basic information for the PNR’s attention. This study provided an assessment of the population’s economic, social and cultural situation, and served as the basis for preparing a comprehensive reparation plan. It added that in 2008, 80 houses were built of wood and sheet metal with cement boarding. 186. In this regard, the psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis in her report of May 5, 2010, indicated that, “[i]n 2009, the [PNR] prioritized the community of Chichupac in order to implement a process of integral reparation.” To this end, in November 2009, it asked the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team (ECAP) “to prepare a diagnosis and proposal for comprehensive reparation for this community.” However, “there has been no agreement with the victims on a clear and robust response in terms of reparations that address all [their] needs, [but rather] isolated actions are carried out such as the construction of houses or the provision of financial compensation, without accompanying measures of health, education, justice or historical memory.” Thus, although the PNR was “in the process of granting housing [,] the people [did] not agree with the type of housing that was to be provided, and regarding the lack of comprehensive reparations.” In addition, “the people who are currently displaced as a result of the massacre are not being considered for reparation measures such as, for example, the construction of housing.” 199 187. The Court has no information as to whether the PNR contemplates specific measures for a possible return or voluntary resettlement and reintegration of the persons who were displaced from the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal, which would eventually include their full participation in planning and management. Nor does it have information on whether - if such measures had been contemplated - they would have eventually been implemented. Although it is on record that in 2009 and at the request of the PNR, the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team (ECAP) prepared an assessment of the community of Chichupac, there is no information on any follow-up to this assessment. Furthermore, the PNR’s municipal office in Rabinal was closed in the last days of March 2016, and it is not known whether it was closed temporarily or permanently. 188. Although the State has reportedly built housing and provided some financial compensation, this Court does not have clear and precise information on the criteria followed to implement these actions, or whether these homes been delivered to the original owners of the territories or to the people who form part of the new settlements. Also, it is not clear whether they are part of a return strategy to reverse the situation of displacement affecting members of the communities, or whether they are aimed at persons who live in the communities, or at people who have been displaced from them. 189. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not adopt sufficient and effective measures to guarantee the displaced people of Chichupac and neighboring communities Cf. Report on the damage to mental (moral) health prepared by the psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis on May 5, 2010 and presented before the Inter-American Commission(evidence file, folios 1307 and 1321 to 1323). 199