18 Justice since he was a high State official very well known in the Colombian society and he was “the representative of the entity of which the administration of justice depended at the time of occurrence of the facts.” In reference to the place where they planned to hold the act, the State mentioned the Municipality of Apartadó as the most appropriate since it is the seat of the municipal government located closest to where the facts occurred and it has easy aerial and land access routes. In the same brief, the State asked the Court that it inform it if it would be possible to hold the act as proposed to the next of kin of the victims. 40. That the representatives had observed that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice was not the most adequate to preside over this act since a high official of that Ministry had granted an interview to the weekly newspaper of national circulation, “El Espectador”, in which it stated that accusing the State before the Inter-American Court had turned into a business, thus delegitimizing the decision adopted by the Tribunal as well as the interest and right the victims of violations to human rights have to demand the reparation that corresponds to them. They also argued that the municipality closest to Pueblo Bello was not Apartadó but Turbo and they requested that the act be held in the township of Pueblo Bello. They also expressed that the powers of the State to comply, through its own tools, with the decisions of the international organizations for the protection of human rights, could not be understood as “contrary to the sense and scope of the reparation measure” and that the city of Bogotá could be a solution in the event that the Government consider that Pueblo Bello does nor offer sufficient security conditions. Likewise, they requested that the act be held preferably on January 14, 2008, a commemorative date of the facts that occurred in Pueblo Bello or alternatively on February 28, 2008, date on which the Judgment was notified. They also expressed that a meeting had been held in April 2008 with the Vice-Minister of Justice, and in the same the representatives of the State requested that the place where the act was to be held be consulted once again with the next of kin. They added that those consultations were hard to carry out since all the next of kin do not live at the same place, nor do all of them have access to immediate means of communication. 41. That the Court had already considered, as communicated through the Secretariat’s note of February 12, 2008 (supra Having Seen paragraph 13), in response to the State’s petition in reference to the questions regarding which official should preside over the act, the place and date of the same, that “[it was] the State’s power to appoint the officials that would make, in their representation, the public apology and acknowledgment of responsibility, provided that they enjoy the characteristic of high investiture referred to in the Judgment. In those terms, the Tribunal has considered that the Minister of Internal Affairs and Justice is one of those ‘high-ranked authorities’ referred to in the thirteenth operative paragraph and his appointment does not affect the sense of the reparation measure ordered.” In what refers to the appropriate place to hold the act, this Tribunal has considered that “as long as the reparation ordered constitutes a measure of satisfaction for the next of kin of the victims executed and disappeared and at the same time a measure of nonrepetition of the facts of the case, the sense of that ordered implies, preferably, that an official public act of apology and acknowledgment of responsibility be held in the same place where the facts occurred. Therefore, the Court ask[ed] that the State make its best efforts to hold said act in the township of Pueblo Bello; if this were not possible, at the Municipality of Turbo, in attention to that expressed by the next of kin of the victims and their representatives. If after having made the consultations and having adopted the measures necessary to decide the location, it is still difficult to have it at one of these locations, then Bogotá or the location proposed by the State would be a valid option.” Finally, the Court asked the State and the representatives to,