26. On June 29, 2011, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was asked to present a report on the matters referred to by the representatives. In this report, the State indicated that the National Army had indeed transported the monument to Bucaramanga,20 where it was being stored “provisionally” at the base of the National Army’s Fifth Brigade to “guarantee its security” “while the civil construction and installation was under way,” given that “on several occasions” the artist had expressed the need to move it from his workshop. The State regretted that the fact that the National Army had moved and stored the monument “had been interpreted as an act that revictimized the family members, and not as harmonious cooperation between State agencies.” In its last report, Colombia reiterated “its most sincere apologies” for the difficulties that have affected compliance with this measure and indicated that it is carrying out internal procedures to complete its implementation. To this end, it has made arrangements with the Governor’s Office of Santander, which has the financial resources to carry out the civil construction works, but “is awaiting the completion of the procedure in order to implement the work.” 27. In their observations to this report, the representatives argued that “the State has shown a lack of clarity, transparency and communication” in complying with this measure of reparation. They also reported that they had approached several State institutions to request that the sculpture be stored at a civilian facility while the construction work is completed,21 yet in November 2011, the work remained at the military base. Given this situation, the representatives requested that the Court require the State, inter alia, to take the necessary steps to have the sculpture stored “as soon as possible” at a civilian institution, under conditions that would guarantee its proper conservation; to begin and complete, in a satisfactory manner, the civil construction work without further delays, and to “establish a regular system to follow up on the implementation of [this] measure of reparation.” Furthermore, in the communications of June 27 and 28, 2011, two family members of the disappeared victims directly addressed the Court to express their “powerlessness,” “sadness,” and “surprise and anger” at the way in which the State had transferred the monument and stored it at the headquarters of the Fifth Army Brigade in the city of Bucaramanga. Subsequently, certain family members of most of the disappeared victims sent communications directly to this Court, expressing their dismay at what had happened with the monument and stating that this caused them anxiety and increased their humiliation. They requested that the State be required to remove the monument from the premises of the Fifth Brigade, a “place that offends them and offends the memory of [their] next of kin,” and to relocate it at another institution in order to have a “place that is open” where the family members can gather to “ease their pain” and the “continuous mourning,” resulting from the disappearance of their family members. 28. The Commission regretted that, despite the time elapsed, the civil construction work has not begun. Regarding the transfer of the monument and its storage at the base of the 20 The State reported that the National Army took charge of transporting the monument because it had suitable machinery to transport it, given the scale of the work, and because “the private transporters who were consulted required licenses and special permits.” 21 The representatives indicated that: a) On July 25, 2011, they sent a letter to the Vice-President of the Republic “as the highest authority” of the Presidential Human Rights Program, but July 29, 2011, they were informed that their request was forwarded to the National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation; b) on October 14, 2011, they sent a communication to the Governor of the Department of Santander, requesting his intervention, without receiving a response; c) on October 6, 2011, the representatives issued a communiqué in the context of the 24th anniversary of the events in this case, calling on the State to comply with this measure; d) on October 7, 2011, the family members of the victims filed a right to petition before the Governor of the Department of Santander, without receiving an answer. Finally, the representatives reported that during the first week of October 2011, they held a meeting with officials of the Presidential Human Rights Program “who promised to make arrangements for the transfer of the monument to a civilian facility.” 11