[…] takes note of the information provided regarding compliance with this measure and underlines the willingness expressed by the parties to reach agreement. However, given that several years have elapsed since its execution was requested, the Court urges the beneficiaries, their representatives, and the State to overcome the obstacles that have impeded the reopening of the Civic Committee of Meta to date, so that they reach final 27 agreement this year. The Court awaits information from the parties in this regard. 39. According to information provided by the parties, a process of consensus took place on that point, with a detailed discussion of the nature and scope of the ceremony, as well as various logistical aspects. Based on the foregoing, the representatives reported in their brief of October 3, 2011 that “agreement has been reached on the [r]eopening ceremony at the Civic Committee of Meta, […] the event has been programmed for October 13, 2011, the day on which they will also commemorate 15 years since the murder of Josué Giraldo Cardona.” This information was confirmed by the State in the brief dated October 11, 2011 where, among other matters, it reported that “[t]he reopening ceremony w[ould] be presided by the Minister of the Interior, who w[ould] be the official in charge of delivering the message of support to members of the Committee and to all human rights defenders in Colombia.” 40. Despite the foregoing, in a brief dated October 19, 2011, the representatives informed the Court that on October 12 of that year, that is, one day prior to the reopening ceremony, the petitioners asked State to “postpone the act” 28 and argued that the decision was due to “circumstances beyond [their] wishes and control that would negatively affect [the] holding of the [c]eremony and would nullify its expected effects [given that] some civil society organizations publicly stated, in an open letter widely circulated [that they were] opposed to carrying out the [a]ct because they considered that this negated the grave human rights situation in the region.” The representatives regretted this decision and insisted on the need to hold the ceremony “in the near future.” 41. In response, the State pointed out that it had “taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the reopening ceremony takes place [and has] invest[ed] countless resources, not only financial, but also human, for the sole purpose of ensuring the successful holding of the ceremony.” It added that “[although] in their communiqué the petitioners announce the decision to ‘suspend’ the act, the State considers that since it was never consulted on this decision, and even the consensus process related to the provisional measures proceeding was disregarded, this amounted to a unilateral cancellation of the event”. The State added that “[c]onsidering the foregoing and the time it has taken to reach agreement on this reopening ceremony and, bearing in mind the State’s undertaking to transmit a message in support of the work carried out by members of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta [it was] analyzing some options, other than holding a reopening ceremony as initially envisaged, through which it could send this message of support and at the same time comply with the [measures] ordered by the […] Court”. 42. For its part, the Inter-American Commission, in its brief of observations of February 14, 2012, stated that “in these types of measures it is essential that the beneficiaries and their representatives are heard and that their opinions are taken into account to the extent possible.” It added that “if, for the representatives and the beneficiary, the [r]eopening 27 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of February 22, 2011, Considering paragraph 33. 28 According to information provided by the State, the message from the representatives announcing the decision to “suspend” the reopening ceremony was sent by email on October 12, at 6:30 p.m. approximately. 13