7 [I]t has complied with the duty to provide comprehensive redress, and has specifically complied with the obligations of a pecuniary nature, with regard to the victims and/or their next of kin that turned to the domestic judicial procedures […]. 18. In addition to the foregoing, in the section of its reply brief containing its petition, the State also requested, inter alia, that the Court: Declare that the Colombian State has complied with each of the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission in its report, number 29 of 2005. […] Exclude from the list of injured parties the surviving victims and next of kin who received compensation in the domestic legal system for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages they may have suffered as a consequence of the events of “The Rochela”. Declare that Wilson Mantilla Castillo and Manuel Libardo Díaz expressly waived international reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that they could have suffered as a consequence of the facts of “The Rochela”, by virtue of the conciliation agreement signed with them and their next of kin. 19. Moreover, in the section of Colombia’s reply brief corresponding to Reparations, under the title “Injured party”, Colombia requested that the Court “deny the claims” submitted by the victims’ next of kin who “went directly to the Inter-American Court […] without having brought forward any type of claim in the domestic forum, despite the opportunity to do so”. Likewise, the State requested that ���the surviving victims and their next of kin who […] received compensation under domestic law for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages caused [be excluded] from the list of injured parties” and indicated that these individuals were “compensated in the contentious administrative courts and in the settlement proceedings.”10 20. After the presentation of the State’s reply brief, the representatives submitted a “partial agreement in relation to some measures of reparation between the State of Colombia and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin” to the Court. This agreement was signed on January 31, 2007 and includes reparation measures related to: i) honoring the memory of the victims, ii) the publication of the Judgment of the InterAmerican Court, iii) the damage to the life project of the victims and their next of kin, and iv) the “damages sustained by some of the next of kin of the victims.” 21. In one section of this partial agreement, the parties stated that the “reparation issues in dispute” are the following: Those categories of reparation requested by the representatives of the victims in their brief containing pleadings and motions, regarding which there are no specific references in this partial agreement, will be considered as matters in controversy before the Honorable Inter-American Court. These include the following measures: 1) the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish; 2) the juridical framework applicable to the process of the paramilitary demobilization; 3) damage to the life project of the victims and their next of kin; 4) mechanisms to fight and dismantle the paramilitary phenomenon; 5) training courses for officials which include monitoring and evaluation; 6) the establishment of a National Human Rights Day; 7) a strategy for the protection of administrators of justice who participate in the investigation and prosecution of grave abuses of human rights; 8) economic compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages of the people that were not included in this agreement, and 9) costs and expenses. 10 Cf. The State included a list of “individuals compensated by judgments in the contentious administrative courts”, which identified 45 next of kin of the 11 deceased victims and surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón, and indicated that “no action for direct reparation was brought for the death of Arnulfo Mejia Duarte.” Likewise, the State included a list of “individuals currently in extra-judicial settlement negotiations before the contentious administrative courts” in which 15 next of kin and the two surviving victims were included.