8 28. Representatives clarified that "they did not respond in writing to the State's proposal" because "on several occasions, the issue was mistakenly addressed (verbally) on [its] part as [a reparation measure whose fulfillment was] linked to the public act of "State recognition of responsibility. As for the texts that the State proposed for the content of the plaques, they said that they "seem to be unacceptable due to inconsistencies with what the Court declared as proven in the Judgment of the case, especially regarding the direct participation of members of the Army in the events of El Aro and the involvement of paramilitaries acting together with members of the police in La Granja." The representatives acknowledged that "the State has refrained from imposing a criteria unilaterally" and asked the Court if "the State may -for this particular case and upon agreeing the text- set, with the victims and their next-of-kin through their representatives, the best time and place to install commemorative plaques, without it being interpreted as non-compliance with this aspect of the Judgment." 29. The Commission stated it was important that "obstacles to the appropriate implementation of this reparation measure can be overcome" and that "it is essential that compliance [with the measures] is the product of a consensus between the State and representatives of the aggrieved party, taking into consideration the expectations of the aggrieved party and the reparative spirit behind it." 30. The President reiterates that this satisfaction measure has an important symbolic and reparative value. Consequently, the fact that through the Order of July 9, 2009 the Court clearly indicated that if the representatives made no observations regarding the State's proposal, it would be understood that they agreed, and that the State could continue with its execution. In light of the information recently submitted by the representatives and the State, they are asked to report on the scope of the agreement that will guarantee the steps necessary to comply with this reparation measure, as well as the term within which it shall materialize. g) Regarding operative paragraph twenty-two of the Judgment 31. Regarding the obligation to publish the proven facts in the Official Gazette and in another nationally circulated newspaper, along with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment, the State indicated that on April 28, 2009 the publication of the relevant paragraphs of the Judgment was carried out in the Official State Gazette and a copy of the publication was attached.6. 32. In this regard, the representatives stated that they did not know whether the State had ordered the publication in the Official Gazette and the Commission "noted the State's compliance with [this] obligation." 33. The President notes that this reparation measure had seemingly been complied with by the State, and thus asked the representatives to submit any observations they may have to the Court. h) Regarding Judgment operative paragraphs twenty-three and twenty-four of the 6 Cf. Official Gazette of the Republic of Colombia April 28, 2009, pages 17 to 23. (monitoring compliance record, Volume II, pages 761 to 767)