c) To take the necessary measures to guarantee safe conditions for the former inhabitants of the villages of El Aro and La Granja who have been displaced to be able to return to El Aro or La Granja, as appropriate, and if they so wish (seventeenth operative paragraph of the Judgment); d) To organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility for the facts of the case, in the presence of senior authorities (eighteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment); e) To implement a housing program to provide adequate housing to those surviving victims who lost their homes and who require this (nineteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment), and f) To erect a plaque in an appropriate public place in the villages of La Granja and El Aro, so that the new generations will be aware of the facts that gave rise to the case (twentieth operative paragraph of the Judgment). 7. The private hearing on monitoring compliance held at the seat of the Court on February 25, 2012, in relation to the measure of reparation on medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment. 8. The reports of April 29 and December 19, 2011, and of September 27, 2012, in which the State presented information on compliance with the Judgment. 9. The briefs of May 31, June 9 and November 30, 2011, and January 31 and November 16, 2012, in which the Commission forwarded its observations on the State’s reports. 10. The briefs of October 20, 2011, and May 31, 2012, in which the representatives referred to the State’s reports and requested clarification with regard to an aspect of the compensation ordered in the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.8 4. Owing to the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of the Court must be complied with promptly and fully by the State. 5. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This duty includes the State’s obligation to provide information on the measures taken to comply with the decisions of the court in its judgments. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to                                                              8 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C. No. 104, para. 131, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph. 3