National Palace of Culture that will be presided by the Constitutional President of the Republic, within two months of the signature [of the agreement].” 206. The Court greatly appreciates the State’s willingness to organize a public act in which it acknowledges its international responsibility and offers an apology for the facts of this case and, therefore, endorses this measure in the terms agreed upon by the parties. Moreover, as it has in other cases, 287 the Court considers that, during this act, reference must be made to the human rights violations declared in this Judgment. In addition, the State, in collaboration with the representatives, must try, insofar as possible, to ensure that the next of kin of Edgar Fernando García attend the ceremony. To this end, Guatemala must reach agreement with the victims or their representatives on the way in which the public act of acknowledgment should be carried out, and the specific details, such as the place and date, and must also provide those attending with the necessary transportation and logistics, inter alia, for this purpose. C.1) Measures to commemorate and pay homage to the victim C.2.a) Construction of cultural and commemorative spaces to dignify the victims of human rights violations 207. The representatives indicated that the premises of the Polytechnic School were used during the armed conflict “as a secret prison and a place where the Guatemalan people were tortured”; therefore, they considered it necessary that the premises “be modified in order to establish a museum for the historical memory, in which the new generations would be shown the violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict and non-repetition would be ensured.” For its part, the State indicated in its answering brief that, in an advisory opinion, the State Property Department of the Ministry of Finance had indicated that it was impossible to establish a museum on the premises of the former Polytechnic School because the building “is administered by the Ministry of Defense,” and therefore it could not grant the request of the President of the COPREDEH. However, it undertook “to continue taking steps with regard to the measure of reparation.” 208. Subsequently, in the reparations agreement, the State undertook, “in a coordinated and complementary effort between the State and civil society, to promote the initiative known as the ‘Concord Memorial, under which it would facilitate the construction of commemorative and cultural spaces in which the victims of human rights violations and, in general, all the victims of the internal conflict, would be dignified, with the goal of conciliation and concord, emphasizing the truth as a component of justice.” 209. The Court assesses positively the commitment made by the State and, therefore, endorses this measure in the terms of the reparations agreement. 210. Additionally, the Court recalls that in the Judgment delivered by this Court in the Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, 288 it ordered the State to construct a park or a plaza to honor the memory of the victims in that case. In view of the 287 Cf., inter alia, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 81; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations, supra, para. 266; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 202; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010, para. 277, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 265. 288 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 351 and seventh operative paragraph. 70