12 willingness for the agreement mechanisms to have control and oversight as agreed to by the representative.” Additionally, in relation to the conditions set out by the representative to reactivate cooperation (infra Considering 32), the State notes that “the Government has repeatedly pronounced about these [conditions], […and that] in relation to the issue of humanitarian zones, the government’s position has been with regard to the civil condition and the civil good of the population, and to discuss the conditions in which law enforcement may have a presence under certain special circumstances; with regards to the installation of a police post in the territory of San José de Apartadó, […] it is a situation which the government considers necessary and [which] additionally has been beneficial to the area; [moreover,] the State has reiterated to the Court that information [on this matter] received by the President has been duly transcribed and made public via Presidential declarations; [finally, that the question of] an evaluation commission of the Prosecutor’s actions has been discussed in depth […] but [it] cannot come to being if there is not willingness to dialogue […].” The State also notes that “if one approaches the [Inter-American] system, this system is based in three parts: the organs, the State that fulfills obligations, and the petitioners or beneficiaries,” that this “table does not function with only two legs,” and that there is no logic in “measures without cooperation.” Finally, the State asks that officers of the InterAmerican Commission and of the Tribunal request the representative to reconsider “reestablishing mechanisms for dialogue.” 32. The representative observed that the State “ignores the repeated presentations of the [Peace] Community, remitted many times already to the Government thought the […] Court, of the four minimal conditions of good faith that would be necessary to secure prior to returning to the negotiating table”: 1) “Revoke the decision to allow the police a physical presence in the territory of San José de Apartadó, returning to the discussion furthered during a year regarding a police presence which allows the police force to fulfill its constitutional mission without violating the legitimate and essential principals of a Peace Community, respecting the principles laid out in Sentence T/1206/01 de la Constitutional Court”; 2) “Rectify the defamation uttered […] against the Peace Community”; 3) “Construct a Justice Evaluation Commission, to reverse the monstrous impunity which blankets hundreds of crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Peace Community”; 4) “Recognize the Humanitarian Zones proposed by the very vulnerable vereda populations, with support in the Conventions and Protocols that constitute International Humanitarian Law.” Additionally, the representative referred to “Sentence T-1025/07 of the Constitutional Court” and, based upon this, expressed that the State has the obligation “to retire the police post that was established in the […] urban center of San José de Apartadó […] on April 1, 2005, […] and to establish controls very similar to those requested by the Peace Community, when dialogue was possible.” 33. The Commission reiterated the importance of the mechanisms of social cooperation between the State, and the beneficiaries and their representative, in terms of the implementation of the present measures. Therefore, it considered that “these type of obstacles should be overcome in good faith by both parties” and noted that “any protective measure should be based on the circumstances and needs of the beneficiaries.” During the public hearing, the Commission made “a call to the parties to return to establish dialogue, aiming to build upon effective gestures by the State, which in turn would generate the confidence of the beneficiaries.” 34. The Tribunal emphasizes that in the present matter, both the State and the representative have confirmed that there is no cooperation between them. In this regard, in the Constitutional Court’s Sentence T-1025/07, referred to by the representative (supra Considering 32) and cited by this Tribunal previously in its Resolution of February 6, 2008 (supra Having Seen 1), said Court indicated that “the Peace Community’s distrust with