also indicated that there is “consensus among the student representatives who have participated [in several meetings] regarding the need to ensure [...] that the event can be held without interference or hindrance of any kind.” Consequently, they had proposed several conceptual elements concerning the act to the State, as well as possible mechanisms to ensure its success, and were awaiting a response. In addition, they proposed the creation of a coordination committee with the participation of the State through its agents authorized to make decisions, representatives of the victims, and university authorities and delegates. 27. The Commission stressed the State’s willingness to implement this measure, and indicated that it hoped that “the parties reach agreement soon regarding the most appropriate mechanisms to implement the measures”; it emphasized the need for effective coordination to comply with the measures of reparation with the urgency required in this case. 28. The Court assesses positively the willingness shown by the parties to reach agreement in relation to the public act acknowledging responsibility. It also takes note of the commitment made during the hearing (supra having seen paragraph 12) that, within one month, the coordination committee between the parties would be established with the participation of different university authorities and levels. Consequently, the Court is awaiting further information as soon as possible regarding the measures taken to comply with this measure of reparation. e) Regarding the obligation to place a plaque in memory of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo in the Palace of Justice of the Department of Antioquia (seventeenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 29. The State indicated that, in response to the proposal submitted by the representatives, it had made a counter-proposal in note DIDHD.GOI, No. 65412/2748 of November 3, 2010.17 In this regard, it indicated that, in a note of February 18, 2011, the representatives “accept[ed] the amendments to the main text made by the State and ask[ed] that the title of the plaque remain as it was in the original proposal.” They also requested “that the plaque be signed by the President of the Republic on behalf of the State.” In this regard, the State accepted the amendment proposed by the representatives and, regarding the signing of the plaque, indicated that it would be examined and agreed upon with them. Finally, the State indicated that it awaited the observations of the parties in order to initiate the administrative procedures and reach the necessary agreements to install the plaque. 17 The State presented the following counterproposal: This plaque is placed in memory of Dr. Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, a criminal attorney, defender of the universal principles of due process and the right to justice, an ardent and courageous defender of human rights. The State of Colombia deeply regrets the events of February 27, 1998 in which Dr. Jesús María Valle Jaramillo was murdered. The State apologizes to his family and society for the violation of human rights for which it was held internationally responsible by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the judgment handed down on November 27, 2008. While acknowledging that nothing can repair the pain his family has suffered, it trusts that this plaque can contribute to the path to justice, to recognize, promote and protect the work of human rights defenders, in the hope that such acts never happen again. Let this be a place to remember him and to renew the commitment to the defense of human rights, proclaiming as he did: “Here we are and here we will always be, in the noise of battle or in the silence of death.” 10