8 awareness in general”. The State provided a copy of the book. It requested that this reparation measure be declared fulfilled. 30. The representatives noted that the State complied with this measure through the publication of said book, the content of which was reviewed by them and the victims before its publication and that copies of the book had, in fact, been distributed among the representatives. They requested the Court to declare that the State complied with this reparation measure. 31. The Commission noted that the representatives confirmed the information provided by the State and it expressed its satisfaction with the compliance with the commitment made by the State. 32. The Court values the willingness of the parties to agree on and coordinate the necessary aspects to appropriately implement this reparation measure. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasizes that, in the different chapters, the book covered important aspects that, as well as dealing with the facts of the case and the different reparation measures ordered in the Judgment, in accordance with the terms of the partial agreement on reparations, it also included photographs of the victims and thoughts dedicated by their next-of-kin and a "summary of the testimonies” given by the victims’ next-of-kin, as well as a general introduction into the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. Moreover, the Court emphasizes that the State has not only published the book but it also helped with its dissemination, all of which has a clear remedial value for the victims' next-of-kin, contributes to greater preservation of the historical memory of the human rights violations committed, fosters the non-repetition of similar facts, and even promotes the Inter-American System. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems that Colombia has fully complied with this reparation measure. To request Supreme Council of the Judiciary to give the Courthouse of the Municipality of San Gil a name that evokes the memory of the victims 33. As for the “best efforts” obligation with regard to requesting that the Supreme Council of the Judiciary give the Courthouse of the Municipality of San Gil a name that evokes the memory of the victims (paragraph 277(I)(8) of the Judgment), in its report of April 14, 2009, Colombia communicated that, after several meetings and requests by State, the representatives forwarded a proposal in July 2008 to name the Courthouse of San Gil “Justicia para la Justicia – Masacre de la Rochela: 18 de enero de 1989” [Justice for Justice - La Rochela Massacre: January 18, 1989]. The State highlighted that, despite the fact that the proposal to change the name was not accepted by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, said Chamber “adopted a measure to safeguard the memory of the victims of this case and decided to name the small square of San Gil Courthouse Mártires de la Justicia de la Rochela [Martyrs of Justice of La Rochela]. The State requested to declare this measure to be fulfilled. 34. The representatives confirmed the information provided by the State and reported that, in the meeting held on April 22, 2009, the State proposed a date to carry out the ceremony in which the small park of the Courthouse of San Gil would be renamed and the plaque unveiled. However, the representatives requested an alternative date from the State to have “enough time to notify the victims and their next-of-kin of the event and request their opinions about the matter, to agree on the organization of the act and the participation of the victims thereto, and organize the logistical issues.” They requested the Court to keep monitoring compliance with this reparation measure.