12 organization of an act, which entails no true commitment or intention to offer an apology to the victims, is out of context for them”; therefore, the act should not be carried out until the State complies with “most part of the measures ordered by the Tribunal” and shows “its true wish that similar events do not happen again”. Lastly, the representatives requested the Court to “authorize [the] request to postpone the act, so that the act is organized with the prior consent of the victims, their next-of-kin and the representatives”. 35. That the Commission expressed its hope that it would be possible to agree “as soon as possible, on the details necessary to carry out the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility”. Furthermore, it considered “it was necessary to take into account the wishes and expectations of the injured party regarding the organization of the act, inasmuch as this act must be aimed at making amends for the victims and their next-of-kin so that it […] complies with the spirit of the reparation that led to it”. 36. That according to the statements made by the parties and despite the efforts pointed out by the State to comply with this obligation, the Court verifies that the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility for the facts of the case has still not been organized, in accordance with what was set forth in the Judgment. This is due, in part, to the impossibility to come to an agreement with the parties as to the high-ranking authorities that should preside over said act. In this regard, the Court considers it is pertinent to emphasize that paragraph 406 of the Judgment indicates that the State must organize a public act of international responsibility, in the “presence of senior authorities”, which does not necessarily requires the presence of the President or Vice-President of the Republic. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that the compliance with this obligation constitutes an autonomous duty of the State, which is not conditional upon the compliance with the other measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment. Therefore, considering the real symbolic value of said act as a measure of satisfaction and guarantee of non-repetition of facts such as those of this case, the State must “acknowledge publicly, in the presence of senior authorities, its international responsibility for the facts of the massacres in El Aro and La Granja, and apologize to the next of kin of the persons disappeared and deprived of their life, for failing to comply with its obligations to guarantee the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life of those persons, as a result of the State’s failure to comply with its obligations of prevention, protection and investigation, and also for the violation of their rights of access to justice, judicial protection and judicial guarantees committed to their detriment” according to what was established in the Judgment,20 and must inform the Court in that regard. * * * 37. That as to the obligation to implement a housing program, to provide appropriate housing to the surviving victims who lost their homes and who require this, within the term of five years as of notice of the Judgment, the State informed that “it is not within its capabilities to build houses, [but that] it agreed with the victims’ representatives that compliance with this measure of reparation shall be done by means of money substitutes, with which the people shall be able to have a home with the characteristics and in the place they wish. In view of this agreement, the Grupo Interdisciplinario submitted a proposal to the State in order to determine the amount of money that shall deliver to each beneficiary of this measure of reparation”, which was accepted by the State. According to the State, the representatives proposed to "quantify in 135 legal minimum wages per month, the amount each person shall receive to purchase a house. This is the value established by Decree 4466 20 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 406.