14 44. That the Court notes that there has been a delay in the compliance with this obligation since the term fixed to such end was of one year as of notice of the Judgment of July 28, 2006. Nevertheless, the Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the State to coordinate with the representatives the compliance with this measure of reparation and observes that the State has made a counter proposal regarding the text of the corresponding plaques, which shall be assessed by the representatives. In this sense, the representatives shall have to answer such counter proposal of the State, as soon as practicable; otherwise, such counter proposal would be deemed approved and the State shall proceed to put up the plaque in the way suggested. Moreover, taking into account that the State should have complied with this obligation on July 28, 2007, the Court considers that such obligation should be fulfilled within the maximum term of three months as of notice of this Order, in view of the real symbolic value of it. * * * 45. That regarding the duty to implement, within a reasonable time, permanent training programs on human rights and international humanitarian law for the Colombian Armed Forces, the State indicated in its report of August 27, 2007 that "it [was] preparing a complete and detailed report on the issue to inform [...] the Tribunal on the compliance with this and other judgments of the Inter-American Court". 46. That, the representatives pointed out on July 4, 2008, that “no progress has been made regarding this measure” and that in the meeting held in November 2006, they expressed to the State “their interest in participating in training programs on human rights and international humanitarian law for the law enforcement personnel”. 47. That on March 12, 2009, the Commission noted "with concern that [...] the State has not presented information [on] this measure of reparation and hopes it properly informs [about it], considering that the training programs on human rights for the Armed Forces constitute an essential element in the prevention of human rights violations". 48. That even though the State has not presented updated information in that regard within the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment in the case at hand, the Tribunal is aware of the fact that the State informed, at the private hearing held on January 19, 2009 on the compliance with the Judgment of the Court in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia, that a cooperation agreement was entered into with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and that three international consultants were hired to conduct a study on the training of the Colombian Armed Forces. In this sense, it informed that in the year 2006, the experts visited a large number of military and police units and verified, in the report, the broad dissemination of human rights and international humanitarian law issues and they determined that there was a training program implemented together with the universities. Nevertheless, they found that the Armed Forces, the Police and the high command acknowledge that there was a problem in connection with human rights. Moreover, the State pointed out that it conducted a study on the perception of human Rights in these bodies, which also evidenced some deficiencies. These elements were good for the Ministry of Defense to design a "Comprehensive Policy on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law" in January 2008, including the education and training as one of the five action points. The State explained, in detail, the activities to be carried out to shape the training and emphasized the impact that this state policy had on human rights issues, claiming, as way of example, that the Attorney General’s Office received considerably less complaints in the last year. Moreover, it informed that an