victim by the Commission in Chapter XII of the application submitted to the Inter-American Court in this case is Luis Humberto Mendoza Arroyave and that the determination of Carlos Mendoza and Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa, as victims of the case in the Judgment, was made by the Court based on the testimony of Luis Humberto Mendoza Arroyave during the hearing before the Court, as well as confidential statements made before the Court on August 11 and 18, 2005. The Commission observed that “the Court needs complete information, available to all the parties, that permits the clarification of this matter, using adversarial proceedings in order to reach the corresponding conclusions, taking into account the need to protect the rights of the victims of human rights violations.” 56. The Court observes that, in Annex III of the Judgment, “Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa” (victim of the violation of Articles 5, 11(2) and 21) and “Carlos Mendoza” (victim of the violation of Articles 5, 11(2), 21 and 22) appear as beneficiaries of reparations for violation of the right to property. In addition, the proven facts of the Judgment reveal that, as in the case of his sister, Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro would only be a victim of the rights recognized in Article 22 of the Convention, as recorded in Annex IV, so that the Judgment does not establish any compensation for him for loss of housing. 57. In addition, paragraph 125.81 of the Judgment considers as a proven fact that “Carlos Mendoza” (No. 17) and “Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa” (No. 33) lost their houses. However, the analysis of the evidence that substantiates the said paragraph 125.81 reveals that, in fact, this would be the same person with the name repeated and not two different victims, and this repetition was then transferred to Annex III of the Judgment. Furthermore, during the proceedings, no evidence was provided that Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro had a different home from that of his father Luis Humberto Mendoza Arroyave; neither was it alleged or proved that Luis Carlos Mendoza Rúa really was the owner of two houses, or that both of them had been affected in the events of El Aro. Consequently, the Court observes that no compensation at all is due to Juan Carlos Mendoza Garro in relation to the violation of the right to property declared in the Judgment and, therefore, he should not receive the pecuniary subsidy agreed between the State and the representatives to substitute the housing program. In addition, based on the terms of the Judgment, no additional compensation based on the pecuniary subsidy is due to Luis Humberto Mendoza Rúa or his heirs, without prejudice to any actions they may file at the domestic level, if appropriate. f) Obligation to place a plaque in the villages of La Granja and El Aro (twentieth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 58. Regarding the obligation to place a plaque in an appropriate public place in the villages of La Granja and El Aro, so that the new generations may be aware of the events that gave rise to this case, the Court observes that the parties have not reached agreement on the text of the plaques. 59. The representatives indicated that, as the State had mentioned, it had not been possible to reach an agreement on this point. The previous Administration had unilaterally ordered the elaboration of plaques, which not only contained errors in the names of the victims, but also included a text that had not been agreed on. Based on the argument that there would be financial costs for the State if the plaques were corrected, the delegates of the Government repeatedly refused to discuss the text. The representatives considered that there was no element of reparation if the State installed plaques that failed to reflect the truth of the events and that it was offensive and re-victimizing for the victims if the text did not make it absolutely clear that their next of kin were murdered owing to the arbitrary action of State agents. The representatives argued that, during the past Administration, 21