22 57. That, at the hearing, the Commission expressed its wish to learn, more in detail, about the intention of the State to alternately relocate the next-of-kin and, therefore, requested further information in this regard. Afterwards, the Commission mentioned that the State has not informed on the precise actions to guarantee the victims the options the State offer. 58. That, this Tribunal notes that part of the victims have expressed their willingness not to return to Mapiripán and be relocated in other regions of the country. In this way, the Court values that the State has taken actions to make alternative measures, like the relocation, possible, and it also values what the State and the representatives expressed about finding, by mutual agreement, a solution within the framework of M.O.S. It is important to recall that, under the terms of the Judgment, the Court noted the connection between the fear expressed by former inhabitants of Mapiripán since they are still being threatened by paramilitary officers, and the need to effectively complete the investigations and proceedings. The State did not inform whether, as ordered in the Judgment, the official representatives were sent to Mapiripán during the first year, to verify the order and make consultations with the residents of the town, nor about the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the area and the design of such measures together with the beneficiaries of them. In defining the method of compliance with this measure of reparation, it is important the respect for the victims' will; specially, considering the effects that the forced displacement cause on them and the situation of risk and vulnerability they are exposed to, according to what was verified and declared in the Judgment. In this sense, the Court shall continue monitoring compliance with this measure. * * * Erection of a monument (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment) 59. That, as to the obligation to build, within one year of notification of this Judgment, an appropriate and dignified monument in remembrance of the facts in the Mapiripán Massacre, the State informed, at the hearing, that in view of a legitimate interest – and as has been brought to the Court’s attention- this measure has been postponed in order to identify more victims and next-of-kin, in order for them to be able to participate in the decision process. It has been agreed that during the year 2009, an arrangement process shall begin in order to organize the criteria of the monument, the artist, the place and the times, so that by December 2009, some progress will be made and in 2010, the monument will be erected. In this sense, the State requests the Court to ratify what was agreed with the representatives. 60. That the representatives confirmed what was expressed by the State, as to the fact that it would be convenient to take a decision regarding the monument with less than half of the victims’ next-of-kin. As a consequence, it was decided to wait for the M.O.S. Mapiripán to begin with the process to search for victims and next-ofkin in order to allow the participation of the new people in the decision-making process regarding the monument. 61. That, even though the erection of an appropriate and dignified monument in remembrance of the facts of the Mapiripán massacre is an autonomous obligation that does not depend on the compliance with other operative paragraphs, the Court values that the State and the representatives have agreed on waiting for the identification of more victims and next-of-kin, in order to allow the people who were directly affected by the facts of the case, to participate in the definition of criteria for the erection of the monument. Based on what was informed by the State and the representatives regarding the procedure to identify other next-of-kin and victims of