6 that due to the aforesaid, the next of kin went towards the end of the act to protest for not having been taken into account, since they should have been the main protagonists. Furthermore, they considered that given the circumstances surrounding the said act, it had not provided any reparation at all, and that was why they had requested the State to conduct another act wherein the next of kin of the victims could participate. They further pointed out that the Minister of Government had told the next of kin of the victims that another act would be organized so that they could participate, though he did not specify the date. Finally, they requested the Court not to consider this operative paragraph as fulfilled (supra Having Seen Clause 3.) 16. That the Commission expressed that the State had not provided any documentary information that might allow the “Court to verify the circumstances under which the act was conducted, the terms of the acknowledgement of responsibility and the manner in which apologies were requested, the authorities that were present and whether there had been any prior coordination tasks with the next of kin in order to allow the act to be conducted so as to comply with its purpose of providing the reparation ordered by the Court.” Furthermore, the Commission stated that the State must send such information to the Court and that the Court should take into consideration the objections submitted by the next of kin of the victims. Finally, the Commission stated that it would appreciate that the State coordinated with the next of kin “to carry out a new act for the acknowledgement of responsibility and to apologize so that the said act may be conducted pursuant to the spirit of reparation which motivates it, acknowledging the dignity of the next of kin of the victims [...]” (supra Having Seen Clause 4.) 17. That on the basis of the information submitted by the parties, the State conducted a public act on April 18, 2007, in which it publicly acknowledged its international responsibility for the violations of the human rights of Marco Antonio Servellón-García, Rony Alexis Betancourth-Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García-Sánchez and Orlando ÁlvarezRíos, and that, considering the statements submitted by the representatives and by the Commission, regarding the manner in which such public act had been conducted, the Court considers it necessary that the State submits in the next report detailed information regarding the manner in which said public act had been conducted and to submit its comments to the statements made by the representatives and by the Commission in order to determine the compliance with operative paragraph ten of the Judgment (supra Having Seen Clause 1.) * * * 18. That with regard to operative paragraph ten, regarding the fact of naming a street or park in Tegucigalpa in memoriam of the victims, the State informed that by means of an agreement with the Municipal Government of the Central District, on May 7, 2007, it was decided to name the street that leads to the national stadium in memory of the victims, the said street would be opened soon, since the same is still being constructed (supra Having Seen Clause 2.) 19. That the representatives, in their comments submitted on November 30, 2007, informed that they knew about the agreement with the Municipal Government referred to by the State and also about the opening of the street. However, they also informed that no commemorative plaque had been placed as ordered in the Judgment; therefore, they