7 issue, refer to the proposal made by the representatives (supra seventeenth considering paragraph). d) Regarding the twentieth operative paragraph of the judgment 20. With regard to the obligation to erect a plaque in an appropriate public place in La Granja and in El Aro, the State indicated that “through the Superior Council of the Judicature it had carried out the internal administrative actions required to contract the elaboration of the plaques with the text suggested by the State.” In this regard, the State clarified that, when it implemented this measure, it had not received the representatives’ response. The State “regret[ted] that it had not reached agreement on the matter with the victims’ representatives” and indicated that it hoped “to have their collaboration for the erection of the plaques and the participation of the victims in that event.” During the private hearing, the State indicated that “the Court […] had endorsed the measures taken by the State and [the] plaques have been made and are ready to be taken to the solemn act” with the text that it had advised to the Court; therefore, it continued to await the agreement with the victims in order to erect them. 21. The representatives clarified that the reason why they “had not responded in writing to the State’s proposal” was because they had approached “the matter […] erroneously […] as [a measure of reparation compliance with which was] connected to the public act” of acknowledgement of State responsibility. Regarding the texts that the State proposed for the plaques, they indicated that they “find them inadmissible, because they do not reflect what the Court declared proven in the judgment in the case; particularly, the direct participation of members of the Army in the events of El Aro and the participation of paramilitaries acting in connivance with law enforcement personnel in the case of La Granja.” In addition, they proposed a text that, in their opinion, should be inscribed on the plaques. The representatives acknowledged and appreciated that “the State had abstained from imposing its criteria unilaterally,” and asked the Court whether “the State may – in this particular case and following agreement on the text – come to an agreement with the victims and next of kin, through their representatives, on the best time and place to erect the commemorative plaques, without it being understood that the State had failed to comply with this aspect of the judgment.” During the hearing, they emphasized that the text “is inadmissible” and that they “will not approve it”; consequently, they asked the State to “open up the possibility of [negotiating] the text.” 22. The Court recalls that, the Order of July 7, 2009 (supra second having seen paragraph), clearly indicated that, if the representatives did not present observations on the State’s proposal within three months, it would be understood that they agreed to it, and consequently the State could proceed to implement it. The representatives delayed one year in sending their comments on the text proposed by the State for the elaboration of the plaques, and this was after the said time limit had expired. The Court observes that, during the hearing, the State put on record its willingness to negotiate the placement of the plaques, while the representatives stated that they were also open to discuss the text. Consequently, the Court asked the State, the Commission and the representatives to advise whether they can reach an agreement on the content of the plaques, respecting the terms of the judgment, as well as the way in which they will be erected e) Regarding the other operative paragraphs of the judgment