-14- Judgment is fundamental to the evaluation of the status of compliance with the Judgment.5 8. Providing sufficient information on compliance with the Judgment is a duty of the State, repeatedly stated by this Court.6 * * * 9. Upon considering the compliance with the Judgment, and after analysing the information provided by the State, the Commission and the Representatives, including the video reproductions of the ceremony submitted by the State (supra Having Seen paragraph 9 (a)), the Court has ascertained that the State has fully complied with the Judgment’s order to hold a public ceremony of recognition and apology, in conformity with Operative Paragraph 6 of the Judgment. The Court stresses the importance of this act and the public apology made by the President of the Republic of Suriname, and emphasizes the relevance of holding the ceremony with the attendance of survivors and families of the victims and of having organized the event based on close consultation with the representatives of the victims and their families. * * * 10. Regarding the obligation to build a memorial in a suitable public location ordered by the Court in the Operative Paragraph 7 of its Judgment, the Court observes that the project is being positively developed and that efforts are being made to achieve the completion of this obligation. The Court observes that at key stages of the development of this project the victims’ representatives have been consulted, as requested by the Court in paragraph 218 of said Judgment. The Court further recognizes the steps taken to complete the monument, including the approval of the design and budget by the Council of Ministers, the agreement about the location of the monument, the commission of the artist and the beginning of its construction. 11. The Judgment’s order established a one-year period for the completion of the memorial counting from the date of notification of the Judgment, a period that expired on July 14, 2006. The Court recognizes that some difficulties could arise in completing the construction project, but needs further updates on the progress of the completion of the monument as this aspect of the Judgment nears fulfilment. * * * 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph seventh; Case of GómezPalomino v. Peru. supra note 9, Considering paragraph fifth, and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. supra note 5, Considering paragraph eighth. 6 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002. Compliance with Judgment. November 28, 2002 Order of the Court, Considering paragraph ninth; Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Considering paragraph seventh, and Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering paragraph twelfth.