20 44. That the Commission stated in its observations that the purpose of the reparations is to help in the recovery of the victims and their next of kin and in that sense “it acknowledges the value and importance of the information presented by the State, especially taking into account the positive impact that has been mentioned by the representatives of the injured party.” 45. That the Tribunal values positively the actions carried out and the willingness of the state authorities to compromise with their victims and their representatives for the coordination of the realization of the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility. Even though this act was not held within the term stated in the Judgment, the Court observes with satisfaction the ample disposition of the state authorities to seek compliance of the measure of satisfaction in its full sense and scope, as well as the ample participation of the victims and high state authorities, and its diffusion among the civil society, public and international organizations, and the media. In that sense, this Court considers that the measure ordered in the thirteenth operative paragraph has been fully complied with by the State in highly satisfactory terms. * * * Construction of a monument (fourteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 46. That in what refers to the obligation to erect an appropriate and proper monument to recall the facts of the massacre of Pueblo Bello, the State informed that the entity in charge of executing this reparation measure was the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice and that it was necessary to know under which figure the next of kin considered it appropriate to recall the memory of the victims. Therefore, the State mentioned that it took into consideration suggestions made by the representatives and that it “would be taking steps with a state entity with experience in this subject [in order to…] agree on the procedure and construction of the monument.” At the hearing, the State referred to the fact that the representatives proposed the name of an artist that could prepare a proposal for the elaboration of the monument and it stated that it was awaiting the artistic proposal in order to continue with the administrative processes necessary for its execution. 47. That the representatives observed that the State had not made any serious progress in the measures oriented to complying with this reparation, which has been delayed due to bureaucratic problems. They also indicated that the State should make proposals that may be observed and assessed by the beneficiaries of the measures. In this sense, they stated at the hearing that the next of kin are waiting for the proposal from the artist chosen by them, not only regarding the monument but the budget as well. 48. That the Commission expressed at the hearing that “it values positively the actions carried out by the State with the objective of partially complying with several of the operative paragraphs [...] and the agreements reached with the representatives” to make access to certain measures easier, especially the construction of the monument. 49. That the Court recalls that the Judgment stated a one-year term computed as of the notification of the same for the execution of this measure of reparation and that this is an autonomous obligation that does not depend on the compliance of the other