11 reconstruction of the social fabric and the collective memory, in particular, when the commission of certain facts affects individuals of indigenous communities. Likewise, the Tribunal values the message given by the highest authorities of the Colombian State, for being a message that was not only oriented to acknowledge the facts determined in the Judgment, but also to honor the memory of Mr. Escué Zapata within his Community. 39. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that the State has satisfactorily carried out the public act to acknowledge international responsibility and therefore, operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment has been fully complied with. * * * 40. As to paragraphs 178 and 179 of the Judgment of July 4, 2007, the Court indicated that “it [took] note” of what the State informed in relation to the fact that “[it has being] speeding up some approaches with the University of Cauca in order to create an university chair named after Germán Escué Zapata”. 41. The representatives pointed out that “the State fail[ed] to present its opinions and observations regarding the compliance with this measure of reparation despite the fact that in meetings for dialogue, it had mentioned some progress related to the approaches made with the University of Cauca and the written proposal presented by the Community”. Based on the foregoing, they requested that the State should present updated information in that regard. 42. The Commission noted that this measure “has not been subject of a decision of the Inter-American Court. However, it positively valu[ed] that measures are being implemented to contribute to remembering Germán Escué and to make amends to the next-of-kin and the community as well. 43. The State indicated that, regarding what the representatives pointed out, “this is not a measure of reparation ordered in the Judgment and therefore, it is not up to the State to inform the [Court] on this matter". Furthermore, it pointed out that the Commission also mentioned it in the observations. 44. The Tribunal clarifies that it values the corresponding State’s commitments offered at the international level and, in this sense, “took note” of them, understanding that the State, in good faith, offered to make them effective, regardless of the decision made in the Judgment17. “To note the undertaking” does not imply ordering the measure in question, which the State would freely undertake to adopt. Therefore, such undertakings are offered, regardless of the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment. 45. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the creation of an university chair named after Germán Escué Zapata does not constitute a measure of reparation ordered by the Tribunal in its Judgment; therefore, its compliance is not subject to monitoring, without prejudice to the right of the victims or their representatives to request, at the domestic level, the compliance with the undertakings freely assumed by the State. 17 See Case of Valle Jaramillo et al V. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 7, 2009. Series C Nº. 200, para. 50.