State agents constantly tried to weaken the coordination mechanisms between the representatives and the victims and their next of kin in order to obtain the participation of a reduced group of misinformed individuals in some type of event that they would subsequently present as the measure of reparation. The representatives affirmed that they hoped to reach an agreement shortly with the State on the content of the plaques and the terms for the implementation of this measure. 60. The State reiterated that it profoundly regretted that an agreement had not been reached with the representatives on the text of the commemorative plaques, which would not be modified. The State considered that the content of the text affords redress, reflects the truth of the events, and acknowledges the State’s responsibility for them. The State forwarded the text of the plaques and indicated that it hoped that the representatives would collaborate with it to ensure the installation of the plaques and the participation of the victims in this event. 61. The Commission considered that, despite the difficulties that might arise in the process of reaching consensus in order to comply adequately with the measures ordered by the Court, it was essential that such obstacles were overcome, bearing in mind the importance of this measure of reparation, the time that has passed, and the necessary participation and satisfaction of the victims with the implementation of this aspect of the Judgment. Lastly, they expressed their concern that the State was seeking to take a definitive unilateral position on the text of the plaques, because the expectations of the victims should be taken into account and their consent and participation were required. Consequently, it considered it essential that the State “revise its position and adopt adequate coordination and participation mechanisms to reach agreement on the text of the plaques.” It added that “any imposition of this content would be contrary to what the Court had explicitly established in its Judgment and would gravely affect the victims of this case.” 62. The Court recalls that, according to paragraph 408 of the Judgment, the State must place a plaque in an appropriate public place in the villages of La Granja and El Aro, so that the new generations may be aware of the events that gave rise to this case, “within one year of notification of this Judgment,” and that “the content of these plaques must be agreed on by the victims’ representatives and the State.” Nevertheless, owing to the time that has passed, the absence of agreement between the representatives and the State, and the content of the text of the plaques that the State has already elaborated, the Court finds that this content complies reasonably with the reparatory purpose of the measure ordered and therefore awaits information and documentation corroborating the site and the day on which they were placed, on condition that the State verify that the precise and correct names of the victims appear on the plaques that are placed. g) Other requirements 63. Regarding the request concerning the State’s position in relation to the proposal presented by the representatives during the last monitoring hearing,26 the State advised                                                              26 In considering paragraph 19 of the Order of February 18, 2011, the Court observed “that the State had made the payments owed. However, the Court takes note of the matter to be resolved in relation to the issue of inheritance, so that Mercedes Barrera’s heirs can access the amount deposited; to this end, it asks the State and the representatives to present information in this regard. In these terms, the State has complied with the provisions of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth operative paragraphs of the Judgment, with this exception, regarding which the Court must be duly advised. The Court asks the State, in its reports on this issue, to indicate its reaction to the representatives’ proposal.” (Regarding Mercedes Barrera, whose compensation was established in Order 1946 of May 19, 2008, issued by the Ministry of Defense, the State advised that the amount had been 22