overcome the difficulties indicated by Peru after the notification thereof, in the judgment of interpretation this other measure was authorized. F.2) Information and observations of the parties and the Inter-American Commission 56. The State indicated during the private hearing in August 2013 that the measures of reparation "have not been implemented.” In its report of September 24, 2013, it explained that the public acknowledgments of responsibility and the publication of the Judgment “have not been carried out.” Previously, in its report of January 23, 2013, it had indicated, regarding the publication of the judgment, that the "Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office has been carrying out the necessary steps in order to comply with the measure.” As for the measure to establish a park or erect a monument (supra Considering clause 55(c)), in the report of September 24, 2013, instead of referring to this measure, Peru referred to the matter originally discussed in the Judgment on the merits concerning the obligation to ensure that all deceased victims in this case are represented in the monument "El Ojo que Llora [the Eye that Cries]" (supra footnote 58). In this regard, Peru reported that that monument “is a place of public access built in favor of all victims of the conflict, and that it is the place for continuous acts of remembrance and commemoration," adding that "it is carrying out a series of actions to maintain the Campo de Marte, where the [mentioned] monument is” to “guarantee its security and conservation.” 57. The common intervener Feria Tinta considered, in her brief of October 17, 2013, that the information reported by the State with respect to these measures of reparation “demonstrates an attitude of open contempt for the judgment of the Court” and shows that "no effort has been made to explain how such simple measures [...] have not been undertaken in almost 7 years since the issuance of the Judgment.” Mrs. Feria Tinta made the following observations regarding the implementation of each of the measures of satisfaction: i) Public acknowledgment is responsibility.- The common intervener recalled that the timeline for compliance with the measure is one year as of notification of the judgment, and said that participation of the Inter-American Commission would be ideal. ii) Establishment of a park or monument.- The common intervener argued that the State “not even in its own ‘report’ seems to understand [...] what specific measure of satisfaction must be carried out." The common intervener argued that "[n]o report regarding [the] monument ‘[El] Ojo que Llora’ was necessary"[, since] in the interpretation of the Judgment, the parties came together (at the request of the Peruvian State itself) [... ] that instead of [this] measure [...], a park be built.” In this regard, she pointed out that the park could be built in "San Juan de Lurigancho district where the Castro Castro prison is located,” and iii) Publication of the Judgment.- The common intervener stated that she did not understand "why [...] the State refuses [...] to publish sections of the Judgment” and considered that this measure “should be carried out immediately” and that "there are [n]o reasons to justify non-compliance” with the measure. 58. The common intervener Cassel stated in his brief of October 23, 2013, that “[t]here is no need to make observations on [those] measures where the noncompliance is obvious and even admitted by the State itself in some cases.” In the past, the common intervener ordered that the State was to “coordinate with the next of kin of the deceased victims an act, in which they may include an inscription with the name of the victim as corresponds according to the monument’s characteristics.” 25