2 f) Erect a plaque in an appropriate public place in La Granja and in El Aro, so that the new generations know about the events that resulted in this case (operative paragraph twenty of the judgment); g) Publish once, in the Official Gazette, the chapter on the proven facts in this judgment, without the corresponding footnotes and the operative paragraphs of the judgment (operative paragraph twenty-two of the judgment), and h) Pay the persons indicated in Appendixes I, II and III of the judgment, the compensations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (operative paragraphs twenty-three and twenty-four of the judgment). 3. The brief of November 17, 2009, in which the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”) forwarded its third report on compliance with the judgment. 4. The brief of April 5, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the State’s report (supra third having seen paragraph). 5. The Order of the President of the Court of April 29, 2010, in which he convened the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a private hearing on monitoring compliance in order to examine the implementation of the measure of reparation ordered in the sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment, regarding the medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment, as well as similar measures of reparation ordered in another seven cases with regard to Colombia.1 6. The private hearing on monitoring compliance held at the seat of the Court on May 19, 2010, on the measure of reparation concerning medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment. 7. The Order of the Court of May 25, 2010, in which it decided to authorize the State to deliver a percentage of the compensation established in favor of María Oliva Calle’s three children, child victims, specifically to purchase a house. 8. The brief of July 26, 2010, in which the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on the State’s report and specific information requested in the Order of July 7, 2009. 9. The communications of August 23, September 7 and October 5, 2010, in which the representatives, the State, and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, referred to the requested submitted to the Court by the representatives for the State to make an additional payment to acquire a house for three minor victims. 10. The Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2010, in which he convened the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a private hearing on monitoring compliance with judgment. 1 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109; Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165 and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192.