13 of 2007 for a public housing. For the year 2008, the legal minimum wage per month in Colombia [was] of $461.500,00 pesos, equivalent to [$US] 200 dollars, approximately”. “The State made use, within the budget in force in the year 2008, of the appropriate amount to comply with this measure of reparation”. Nevertheless, it requested this Tribunal "to ratify the agreement entered into between the parties and order the State to comply with this measure of reparation by means of monetary substitutes equivalent to 135 current legal minimum wages per month”. 38. That the representatives indicated that, “prior consultation with the victims, they made a proposal to the State in order to deliver to each beneficiary an amount of money for the purchase of a new or used housing, in the place chosen by them, which would be equivalent to 135 current legal minimum wages per month, maximum value of public housing according to the Colombian legislation. The representatives indicated that the State orally informed them that it accepted the proposal and therefore, they requested the Court to “ratify the agreement entered into”. 39. That, the Commission indicated that “it notes with great pleasure the information presented by the State in relation to the substantial progress made in the compliance with this measure of reparation and that it hopes the beneficiaries may have an adequate housing within a short term". 40. That the Court notes and values that the State has adopted certain measures leading to the compliance with this obligation; specifically, the acceptance of the proposal made by the representatives as to its fulfillment by means of the delivery to each beneficiary of a sum of money equivalent to 135 current legal minimum wages per month for the purchase of a house. In view of the fact that the parties requested the Court to ratify said agreement, the Tribunal considers it is appropriate to do so as long as the victims give their express consent to it, in order to comply with the purpose of the reparation ordered in the Judgment. The State shall inform on the measures adopted in terms of said agreement, which shall be executed in the term established in the Judgment for the compliance with this obligation. * * * 41. That as to the obligation to erect a plaque in an appropriate public place in La Granja and in El Aro, the State pointed out that “in order to be able to approve the fulfillment of this measure, it was necessary to have a proposal from the victims’ next-of-kin in order to quantify it”. According to the State, on June 18, 2008 the representatives were formally requested to forward a proposal as to the material, size and text of the plaque, prior consultation with the victims’ next-of-kin. On April 23, 2009 the State forwarded the Tribunal the copy of a brief addressed to the representatives of the victims and their nextof-kin in which the State accepted the proposal and sent a counter proposal regarding the text of the plaques, for their consideration. 42. That the representatives did not refer to the proposal requested by the State, but they limited to note that the Superior Council of Judicature would be responsible for the compliance with this obligation. 43. That the Commission does not have information from the representatives as to the proposal that the State allegedly requested them, but "hopes the State overcome the obstacles as soon as possible in order to comply with this aspect of the Judgment and informs about it”.