-8Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) forward, as soon as possible, their observations to the State’s report of July 26, 2005 and the State’s brief of July 13, 2005 (supra Considerations 3 and 5). 10. The brief of October 3, 2005, through which the representatives forwarded their observations to the state’s report of July 26, 2005 and the state’s report of July 13, 2005 (supra Considerations 3, 5, and 9). In synthesis, they stated the following: a) regarding the obligation to investigate, the Colombian authorities do not comply with the reasonable period of time referred to in the Judgment. It is not until May 7, 2005 that it ordered the reopening of the preliminary investigation. The dispersion of actions with different purposes may lead to exhausting all efforts without obtaining efficient results. The State should explain what the benefit is in direction of compliance with the Judgment of starting a new preliminary investigation. They request that the State indicate the reasons that prevent it form initiating in an immediate and effective manner compliance with that ordered in the Judgment, thus submitting the members of the public force that participated in the facts to investigation, prosecution, and, if necessary, punishment within a procedure before an ordinary court; b) regarding the search and delivery of the remains of the victims, “the government’s report would indicate that the actions carried out were not called to be carried out within a reasonable period of time and that they do not have the tools necessary to invest it with seriousness.” The investigators of the Technical Body of Investigations of the Prosecutor’s Office were ordered to determine if the property of the Pérez’s family and some places referred to by those condemned in the domestic investigations existed or not, without knowing the results of said inquiries. Contact with the next of kin of the victims has not been established again in search of information that could be relevant for the search. The existence or lack thereof of a civil party within the investigation does not prevent that the State fully comply with that ordered in the Judgment. The next of kin and their representatives have been attentive to supporting the search actions carried out; c) regarding the monument in memory of the victims, they requested that the Court require that the State take into consideration the opinions of the next of kin of the victims and that it take into account that the monument has the objective of maintaining the memory of the victims alive and of creating awareness so that facts of the same nature do not occur again; d) regarding the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, the State denied the requests that the act be directed by the highest state authorities. The purposes of the measure of reparation have not been complied with. It is necessary that the State acknowledge “that the persons detained missing as of October 6, 1987 were not guerrilla fighters or collaborators of the guerrilla” and that it also state what cannot happen again. The State refused to accept the requests made regarding the need that the highest authorities direct the act and “it was not until the last minute that the Government decided to include the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the event.” The attitude shown by the State is formally of respect and compliance, but in the practice it has not