d) Obligation to organize a public act to acknowledge responsibility (eighteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 33. Regarding the obligation to organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility for the facts of this case in the presence of senior authorities, the State has reiterated its wish to meet with the representatives to decide on the corresponding details. The State referred to its autonomous obligation to comply with the measures of reparation ordered, and argued that the representatives had insisted on the need to move forward on other measures of reparation ordered as a condition for reaching the pertinent agreements concerning this measure. At the meeting held in March 2011, “it was agreed to evaluate, over a period of six months, the progress made in compliance with the measures relating to the substitution of a pecuniary subsidy for the acquisition of housing to the persons mentioned in Annex III, as well as the measure relating to the socio-economic assistance for the displaced persons, as a prelude to discussing the details of the organization of the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility.” In its latest report, the State considered that compliance with this measure should not be postponed further and considered that the representatives should indicate their willingness to reach agreement on compliance with it, at which time the Court would be duly informed. 34. The representatives had advised the Court – after consulting a group representing next of kin of the victims – that it considered that the failure to comply with most of the measures of reparation ordered by the Court in the Judgment, was sufficient reason for not organizing the public act until the State had demonstrated its real intention that events of this nature would not be repeated and most of the measures of reparation ordered by the Court had been implemented. The State had respected this decision and had abstained from imposing the act unilaterally, which they considered a positive attitude. It did not appear that the State would comply, in the short-term, with the obligation to provide comprehensive health care and take measures for the socio-economic rehabilitation of those displaced who were unable to return. Regarding the situation of public order in the northern region and in Bajo Cauca in the department of Antioquia, this continued to be critical, owing to the presence of new paramilitary groups, which made it almost impossible to carry out a public act peacefully. Nevertheless, the representatives understood that this was a measure that could not be postponed indefinitely; hence they considered it essential to explore solutions, and expressed their willingness to decide on the most appropriate procedure jointly with the State. 35. The Court takes note of the willingness of the State and the representatives to comply with this measure of reparation and, therefore, urges them, now that 15 and 16 years have passed since the massacres took place and six years since the Judgment was handed down, to reach agreement promptly in order to comply with it. It therefore awaits information in this regard. e) Obligation to implement a housing program (nineteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) e.1. Regarding the agreement to hand over funds for the purchase of housing 36. The Court recalls that, in its Order of July 7, 2009, it observed and assessed “that the State had taken certain measures to comply with this obligation, in particular the acceptance of a proposal from the representatives for its implementation by giving each beneficiary a sum of money equal to 135 current legal minimum monthly wages for the 15