transmitted in direct by all national radio stations and television channels. Subsequently, it was disseminated by some of the main newspapers, and in radio and television announcements. 356. At the public hearing and in their final arguments brief, the representatives recognized the importance for the victims of the “speech in which the Salvadoran President acknowledged responsibility and apologized for the facts of the massacre,” in the context of the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the Peace Accords, held in El Mozote on January 16, 2012, “because they took part in its planning and because they really felt they had received redress.” They also stated that, for the State’s acknowledgment and the ideas proposed to have a reparatory effect and to be coherent it is essential that they lead to the adoption of effective measures that take into account the opinions of the victims. The representatives also indicated that “[o]n January 16, 2010, in the context of the commemoration of the signature of the El Salvador Peace Accords, the Salvadoran President [had] announced the creation of a commission in charge of proposing measures of reparation that would benefit the victims of grave human rights violations during the armed conflict,” and that “[a]s of that time, meetings ha[d] been held with civil society organizations and victims of human rights violations, purportedly in order to obtain input to prepare this proposal.” Consequently, they considered that the Court should remind the State “of the need to comply with the commitment assumed by the President,” and that the said measures must comply with the standards established by the Court. 357. In the instant case, the Court notes that the act of acknowledgment of responsibility held at the domestic level and before the delivery of this Judgment was agreed with the victims or their representatives and was executed as follows: (a) publicly; (b) at the place where the events occurred; (c) responsibility for the extrajudicial execution of the victims was acknowledged as well as for the other violations committed in this case; (d) it was held in the presence, and with the participation, of a considerable number of survivors and next of kin; (e) it was headed by the highest State authority – namely, the President of the Republic – and senior State officials took part in it, and (f) it was broadcast and disseminated fully throughout the country. In this regard, the Inter-American Court considers that the ceremony conducted by El Salvador is appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the violations whose reparation is sought and that the declarations of the President of the Republic were designed to recover the memory of the victims, recognize their dignity, and console their relatives.525 Therefore, the Court considers that it is not necessary to order another public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility in relation to the facts of this case and, in addition, it assesses positively the State’s initiative to hold talks with the victims on the other measures of reparation to be implemented. Lastly, the Court urges the State to continue making the necessary arrangements to comply with the measures announced in the said speech. b) Publication of the Judgment 358. In general terms, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to establish and disseminate the historical truth of the facts and to recover the memory of the deceased victims. 359. The representatives asked the Court, in accordance with its case law, to order the State to publish the relevant parts of the Judgment, in both the Official Gazette and a national newspaper with widespread circulation. 360. The State expressed its willingness to accept this measure and to publish the relevant parts of the judgment to be delivered by the Court, within the reasonable time required by its nature. the murdered victims; representatives of the El Mozote Asociación Promotora de Derechos Humanos, Tutela Legal del Arzobispado and the Comunidades Eclesiales de Base de Morazán. 525 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 77, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 265. 113