4 that both the representatives and the State have shown during the process of monitoring compliance with this aspect of the Judgment.7 Likewise, the Court is aware that in the framework of this dialogue, the representatives expressed that Ms. Nelly Valle Jaramillo is “in neither the physical nor the emotional state to begin a course of academic study.”8 For its part, the State made known its willingness to “fulfill this reparation measure and remedy, in some way, the suffering and needs that [this beneficiary] has faced.”9 9. Regarding the approval of the agreement reached between the parties (supra Considering Clause 6), the Court takes into consideration the comments made by the State and the representatives. In this respect and considering the particular needs of Ms. Nelly Valle Jaramillo, which justifies the request, the Tribunal values that the State has agreed to allow an alternative reparation measure. Furthermore, the request is based on the consent, consensus, and good faith that are evident in both parties’ willingness. 10. Thus, given the specific circumstances described (supra Considering Clauses 8 and 9), and considering the agreement reached between the State and the representatives, wherein the parties clearly stated the amount of the grant, its beneficiary, and the method of payment, the Court deems that, under the present monitoring process, the agreement between the parties is appropriate, as a means of complying with Operative Paragraph 19 of the Judgment as far as Ms. Nelly Valle Jaramillo is concerned (supra Considering Clause 6). In this respect, it is the Court's responsibility to continue monitoring compliance with this measure until it is fully satisfied. 11. The Court positively values the State and the representatives’ willingness to enter into dialogue and reach an agreement in order to achieve the alternative compliance of this aspect of the Judgment, which is a positive contribution on Colombia's behalf in favor the victims of the present case. Given the agreement implies the adoption of steps or actions on the part of both the State and the beneficiary to achieve compliance, the Court requests that the parties provide information on the steps taken to ensure delivery of the grant to Luis Fernando Montoya, son of Ms. Nelly Valle Jaramillo, in order to evaluate the possible compliance. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercising its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 24 and 30 of the Statue, and Articles 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 7 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause 33, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 37. 8 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court, supra note 7, Considering Clause 31. 9 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court, supra note 7, Considering Clause 30, and Case Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 34.