D) Obligation to reach agreement with the next of kin of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña on the designation of a public place with their names, in which a plaque must be placed which refers to the Judgment, the facts of the case and the circumstances in which they occurred (eleventh operative paragraph of the Judgment) 22. The State advised that the Autonomous Municipal Government of La Paz had promulgated Municipal Ordinance GAMLP No. 078/2011, naming the “Avenida José Luis Ibsen Peña y Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas,” and that Tito Ibsen had accepted this designation on behalf of his family in a note dated November 4, 2010, addressed to the Head of Cultural Affairs of the Municipal Government of La Paz, Walter Gómez Méndez. According to the information provided by the State, the public act held on August 2, 2011, during which the commemorative plaque was unveiled,22 was “duly coordinated” with the representatives and was attended by the President of the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos (ASOFAMD), the Head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Mayor of La Paz, the Vice Minister for Justice and Fundamental Rights, a representative of the Vice Minister for Institutional and Consular Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Tito Ibsen on behalf of the victims’ family. 23. In their brief of November 14, 2011, the representatives indicated that the Municipal Government had issued Municipal Ordinance GAMLP No. 078/2011” naming the avenue “located between Costanera and Alamos avenues and Benito Juárez street, circumscribing Block 9 of the La Florida zone.” They also indicated that Martha Castro Mendoza and Rebeca, Raquel and Tito, all with the last name Ibsen Castro, attended the public act held on August 2, 2011, in order to name the said avenue. In addition, in the same brief, they indicated that “the State had complied strictly and diligently” with this aspect of the Judgment. However, in their brief of March 13, 2013, the representatives pointed out that “even though it is true that, in one way or another, the [eleventh operative paragraph of the Judgment] had been complied with; nevertheless, the provisions of paragraph 249 [of the Judgment establishing that, in a public place agreed on with the representatives …] a plaque should be placed that referred to the Judgment, the facts of the case, and the circumstances in which they occurred […],” had not been complied with in any way within the one-year time frame. 24. The Commission “assessed positively the efforts made by the State to comply with this measure of reparation.” However, it indicated that “the text included on the plaque by the State refers to Mr. Ibsen Peña as ‘murdered’ and not as ‘forcibly disappeared,” even though, to date, his fate and whereabouts have not been established.” Also, it “consider[ed] that the reference to ‘the circumstances in which the facts occurred’ might be somewhat incomplete.” Consequently, the Commission “consider[ed] it essential to know the opinion of the representatives of the victims” before finding that this aspect had been complied with, bearing in mind its importance for the historical memory. In particular, the Commission indicated that “it would be relevant to have further information as to whether the text of the plaque had been decided on with the family.” 25. The Court observes that, in its Judgment, it assessed positively that the State had organized a public act of reparation, during which it officially named a traffic circle “Familia                                                              22 The plaque contains the following text: “Avenida José Luis Ibsen Peña y Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, Padre e Hijo, Asesinados durante la dictadura militar de los años 1971 a 1978. En virtud a la Sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos emitida el 1 de septiembre de 2010 ‘La Desaparición Forzada Es Un Delito’ La Florida” [José Luis Ibsen Peña and Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas Avenue, father and son, murdered during the military dictatorship from 1971 to 1978. Based on the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered on September 1, 2010, ‘Forced disappearance is a crime,’ La Florida]. 9