15 on the structure and mode of certain aspects pertaining to the allocation of the necessary resources, planning, execution and supervision of the program, based on the objectives set forth in the Judgment and the protection required to ensure adequate reparation specifically for the next of kin of the victims who decide to return to Pueblo Bello. In this regard, the Court will now address the specific points raised by the State. 44. Regarding to the first question posed by the State, the Court notes that the file did not include sufficient information to establish the way each family group lived before the facts of January 14, 1990, or to assess the material property lost. However, the Court did not limit this reparation to family groups, but rather ordered that the program be implemented “for those next of kin who return to Pueblo Bello.” It is reasonable to assume that composition of said family groups may have varied since then, and it was also proven that the facts altered the manner of life of the families. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that the housing needs of each person or family group must be established based on an assessment of each case, in the framework of the housing program set up. 45. Regarding the second question, regarding to the deadline for the respective claim, the very dynamics of the displacement phenomenon entail that each beneficiary of the program can make his or her claim when they decide to return to Pueblo Bello, as set forth in paragraph 275 of the Judgment. This moment will no doubt vary according to the specific circumstances of each person and based on verification of the security situation in the area, therefore a “reasonable period” was mentioned for this purpose. Bearing in mind the situation of displacement faced by the families in the context of the armed conflict and of the specific characteristics of the instant case, the Court therefore deems it pertinent to specify that the maximum period to make these claims is 5 years from the date of notification of the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs (supra para. 6). 46. Regarding to the third question regarding the evidence that must be supplied for the next of kin of the victims to be beneficiaries of the housing program, they should be considered beneficiaries merely by proving that they are next of kin of victims, whether because they were included in Appendix II of the Judgment or by subsequently demonstrating this in the aforementioned terms (supra paras. 24 to 27). 47. Regarding to the fourth question regarding the deadline for the State to comply with said obligation, the Court deems it appropriate to specify that the State must comply with this reparation within 18 months of when the person duly demonstrated that he or she is a beneficiary of the program. 48. Finally, regarding the fifth question, in the case of next of kin who have benefited from a government housing program that sought to repair, or in some way alleviate, the effects of forced displacement, the Court deems that participation in said programs would compensate the effects of the damage caused. 49. Pursuant to the above, the Court has established the meaning and scope of the provisions of paragraphs 275, 276 and 287 of the Judgment. VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS