5 that the State become a mediator, as this is an agreement entered by the State and a contracting party,” which “would distort the measure ordering that the [C]ommunity be responsible for investing the funds.” In this regard, they stated that they “[a]greed” to “an inter-administrative agreement being entered by a national entity and the Resguardo de Jambaló for the creation of the fund and its delivery to the [C]ommunity, the latter being responsible for administering and executing it.” 19. Regarding paragraph 168 of the Judgment, it pointed out that: The Court values the willingness showed by the State to place a plaque in memory of the victim and the events occurred; that notwithstanding, it takes into consideration that the memory of Mr. Escué-Zapata is to be redressed through works and services for the benefit of the Community of which he was a leader. For that purpose, the Court deems that the State must deliver, within the term of one year following notice of this Judgment, the amount of US$ 40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) in order to create a fund bearing the name of Germán Escué-Zapata, so that the Community may invest it in works or services of collective interest and for its benefit, in accordance with their own methods of consultation, decision, traditions, and usage and custom, regardless of the funds which may be allocated in the national budget for public works in that region. 20. In determining reparations, the Court deemed it relevant to redress the memory of Mr. Escué-Zapata through the execution of works for the benefit of the Community of which he was a leader. For that purpose, which was clearly established in the Judgment, the State must allocate the amount of US$ 40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) to the creation of a fund. 21. The manner in which the State will make the foregoing reparation is to be decided by the State itself, as long as the spirit of the reparation meant to redress the victim’s name be observed and the Community to which he belonged may benefit from works or services thereby chosen, without the State interfering with the purposes for which the Community may want to use such funds. VI REGARDING THE MEASURES TO ENSURE HIGHER EDUCATION FOR MYRIAM ZAPATA-ESCUÉ 22. The State pointed out that the Judgment ordered it to grant the victim’s daughter, Myriam Zapata-Escué, “a scholarship to study at a public university to be jointly chosen by the beneficiary and the State,” and that said scholarship should cover all expenses related thereto. It further ordered that “traveling expenses from the city where the beneficiary chooses to study to her Community shall be borne by the State.” In this regard, the State pointed out that as “it cannot guarantee admission to any university,” since this depends on each academic institution, “[w]hat is the State expected to do if Myriam Zapata-Escué is not admitted into any public university?” By the same token, “[c]onsidering that in Colombia the average period of time it takes a student to complete his pre-graduate studies is about five years,” the State raised the following question: “Should Myriam Zapata-Escué fail to complete her studies within such period, what is the State expected to do?” Lastly, the State asked whether “[i]t was possible to set an amount of money equivalent to the sum needed to bear living expenses, academic material, housing, and traveling expenses, which sum would be granted to Myriam Zapata-Escué in a single payment so that she may administer it.” 23. The Commission pointed out that “these issues should not be raised in a request for interpretation of a judgment […], as they are related to the method of compliance with this reparation measure and, therefore, should be raised within the context of compliance with the judgment.” Furthermore, the Commission considered that “the purpose of this reparation measure and the method of compliance therewith” were clearly established in paragraph 170, as it provides that all university expenses should