National Army’s Fifth Brigade, the Commission noted “with concern” that this matter had not been reported to the representatives, and that neither family members nor their representatives had access to the sculpture. In this regard, the Commission recalled the importance of this type of reparation measure, “for which the victims’ expectations and needs should be taken into consideration and their proper participation should be assured.” Accordingly, the Commission requested that the State find suitable means to transfer the sculpture to an appropriate civilian institution for safekeeping and to take the necessary steps so that the civil construction work can begin as soon as possible, ensuring that the victims have access to the work and can participate in the process. 29. Before assessing compliance with this measure of reparation, the Court deems it appropriate to rule on the transfer of the sculpture and its storage at a military facility and the corresponding requests of the representatives on the matter, based on the information provided by the parties. 30. In this respect, the Court takes cognizance of the grievances and distress expressed by the representatives and the victims’ next of kin, regarding the fact that they were not informed about the circumstances of the transfer and subsequent placement of the sculpture; that they do not have access to it, and that they have not received an answer from the State authorities contacted to resolve this situation. Given the State’s obligation to allow the victims’ next of kin to participate in this measure of reparation, the Court does not consider it justified that they were not properly informed, consulted or allowed to participate in the decision to transfer the sculpture and provisionally store it at the military facility. The Court emphasizes that, prior to its transportation, the representatives requested information from the authorities responsible for complying with this measure of reparation and expressed their concern over how the sculpture would be stored once it was completed, on at least three occasions, without a receiving an answer from the State in this regard.22 Furthermore, despite the fact that the representatives, through the Court, expressed their concern to the State over “unofficial” information indicating that the sculpture would be “stored at the military facility,” Colombia transported the work, stored it at the military base and only reported this to the victims and the representatives after this had occurred. 31. The Court takes into account the State’s argument that the participation of military personnel is nothing more than “harmonious cooperation between State agencies,” so that “joint responsibility exists regarding compliance with this [measure of reparation].” However, the Court does not consider it reasonable or necessary to subject the victims to a situation where they feel re-victimized or humiliated, inasmuch as the monument in memory of their relatives was stored at the facility of the State security forces considered responsible for the violations committed against their next of kin, to which they apparently do not have access. The State did not give any reason as to why the sculpture could not be stored at another institution of a civil nature, nor did it mention any steps taken to find another place to store it, with the consent of the family members. Although Colombia has maintained that the sculpture was being stored at the Fifth Brigade base on a provisional basis, it did not indicate an approximate date of completion for the civil construction work and a year has passed since the sculpture was moved to the military facility. Moreover, as 22 Communication of the representatives of October 16, 2009, addressed to the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, communication of the representatives of November 24, 2010 addressed to the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, communication of the representatives of December 21, 2010, addressed to the Inter-American Court reporting on a meeting held on December 15, 2010 with the State, communications of March 29 and April 29, 2011, cited in the brief of June 3, 2011 of the representatives, and brief of June 3, 2011 containing the representatives’ observations. 12