5 b) regarding the obligation to organize a public act acknowledging the State’s responsibility, the victim’s next of kin were looking forward to the presence of the “highest authorities of the State” at the act of October 10, 2005. Such act was attended by the Deputy Minister of Justice and one representative of the Ministry of Labor. President Alejandro Toledo was not present. In spite of the fact that this act was organized after the three-month period prescribed in the Judgment had expired and it was not attended by the top State authorities, the next of kin considered that this measure of reparation had been complied with; c) regarding the obligation to publish the relevant sections of the Judgment of the Court, they expressed their “satisfaction over the publication ordered and carried out by the State of Peru.” Even though such publication took place in both cases once the three-month period prescribed in the Judgment had already expired, they considered that this measure of reparation had been complied with; d) regarding the obligation to establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, it is necessary for the State to “provide information on the administrative measures taken by Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos to appoint a professor in charge of the course and to approve such course’s syllabus;” e) regarding the obligation to recall and praise the work of Pedro HuilcaTecse in favor of the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day), the State has not provided evidence showing that either Pedro Huilca-Tecse or his work in favor of the trade union movement in Peru were mentioned during the 2005 Order of Labor Decoration ceremony. The victim’s next of kin were not invited to the May 1, 2006 ceremony. Even though the issue of the Ministry Resolution intended to have this measure of reparation complied with did entail a significant step forward, it is not by itself enough to assess whether the obligation has been complied with and how it will be complied with in the future. Consequently, the State has partially complied with this measure; f) regarding the obligation to erect a bust in the memory of Pedro HuilcaTecse, the exact location of the trade union leader’s bust still remained to be decided upon. Following an agreement between the victim’s next of kin and the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima for the bust to be erected at the “La Exposición” Park, said Municipality proposed a change of location to the “Las Maravillas” Park, which change was not accepted by the victim’s next of kin. The representatives, as well as the Workers’ Federation, sent several letters to the mayor of Lima and the State’s agent appointed to this case, among others, expressing “the next of kin’s disagreement on the installation of the bust at said park, which is an unsafe location where it [could] be destroyed or vandalized, and because such place was not a proper location for hosting public tributes to Pedro Huilca-Tecse.” Furthermore, the victim’s next of kin rejected the proposals for the installation of the bust at several different locations offered by the municipal authorities of the districts of Breña, San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador, on the grounds that such locations were not suitable for the intended purpose. Lastly, the victim’s next of kin proposed that the Municipality of Lima’s original proposal to install the bust at