4 attended the ceremony”. The corresponding statement “was made by the Minister of Interior and Justice in the presence of prosecutors, state officials and the public in general". According to the State, “said act was covered by all the print and broadcast media”. The representatives expressed some criticism in relation to this act, because the event was not consulted with them with due advance notice, Mrs. Patria Portugal was not invited to take the floor and also, because of the terms stated in the act of recognition. Moreover, the Commission valued the ceremony but “it note[d] that some aspects of the way in which it was conducted” were not “suitable to achieve the main purpose for which it was ordered, that is, the moral reparation”. 15. Furthermore, the State indicated that on May 24, 2010, it was shown “the plaque with the name of Heliodoro Portugal” that is placed on the street named after him. According to the State, the street is at “Santa Ana Corregimiento, place where Mr. Portugal carried out his political activity”. The State indicated that the Vice-President and Chancellor of Panama, during the speech, "admitted that what happened” is “terrible for the history” of the country, which “as well as many other cases, had not been resolved” and “justice has not been dealt out in such cases, in order to guarantee the non-repetition of these facts again”. The State indicated that the Vice-President pointed out in such act that “the Panamanian State apologizes for the acts committed, which triggered the disappearance, torture, abuses, violation of fundamental rights and death, in this specific case of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal”. The Commission “value[d] the naming of a public street after Mr. Portugal, a street that is located in a very important area for the family". 16. Moreover, the representatives informed about an event organized on May 27, 2010, at Salón Amarillo of the Palacio de las Garzas, that is, the Presidential House. Said act was presided over by the President of the Republic, together with the State Ministries, the First Lady of the Republic, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Attorney General. During the event, the President made reference to the Judgment delivered by the Court, to the violations committed to the detriment of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal and to the suffering of his family. In addition, in said event, the President of the Republic apologized, on behalf of the State, not only for the violations committed against Mr. Portugal but also for the other victims of the military dictatorship and he also undertook to render justice in those cases. The event was, also, broadcasted live on the national television network. In this respect, the representatives indicated that “the organization and announcement for the event” were “previously coordinated with Portugal family, taking into account their expectations”. Furthermore, they mentioned that “the Portugal family is satisfied with the act of recognition” since “it was formally carried out and complied with the purpose of honoring the memory of Heliodoro Portugal”. 17. The Court considers that the unveiling of the plaque in an important street named after Heliodoro Portugal because of the political activity he carried out in that street, has a clear value for and provides reparation to his next-of-kin, for the purpose of preserving the historical memory of the human rights violations committed and ensuring that such facts are never repeated5. Furthermore, the Court notes that in the ceremony in which the plaque was unveiled, the High Official, who fulfills the duties of VicePresident and Chancellor of Panama, apologized for the violation of the rights committed against the victim. In addition, the event carried out on May 27, 2010, was honored by the presence, consent and participation of the victims, included an apology, recognition of responsibility consistent with the terms established in the Judgment on the merits and a commitment to avoid impunity in the instant case. Based on the foregoing and the information furnished by the parties, the Court highlights the importance of these acts 5 Case of Goiburú et al V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 53; Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, considering clause eighteen and case of Goiburú et al V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 19, 2009; Considering clause twenty-four.