5 12. That, as regards the obligation to publish the results of the proceedings, the State initially reported that it was making the necessary arrangements for the criminal review judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Justice in June 2008, which had become final,7 to be published. At the private hearing (supra Having Seen No. 7), the State specified that it did publish the original and appellate criminal judgments as well as the criminal review documents on the “web pages” of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Police Department, the Ministry of Defense and the Office of the Vice President of Colombia. Moreover, it noted that, in particular, a decision was made to have all websites of the presidential human rights program of the Office of the Vice President of Colombia and the site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs permanently carry the judgments rendered by the Inter-American Court in connection with Colombia, including the various procedural instruments that may be relevant. The State also noted that, even though these judgments will be available for a period of two months on the home page of the National Police Department’s site, a decision was made to have the “link” of the legislation page “permanently” display the judgments. It was the State’s view that, by doing so, it had complied with its obligation to “publish the results of the proceedings.” Lastly, the State addressed a “text” it sent to the representatives for consultation purposes, to coordinate the publication of the judgments, as these “extremely lengthy, […] and in legalese and not accessible to all the public;” it thus explained that the text was intended to serve as an introduction to the judgments at the time of their publication. As to the disagreement referred to by the representatives in this regard (infra Considering clause No. 13), the State noted that it was “open” to discussing and agreeing on the terms of the aforementioned introductory text. 13. That, at the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), the representatives pointed out that, on January 12, 2010, the State sent them a text, for consultation purposes, related to the alleged publication of the aforementioned court decisions (supra Considering Clause No. 12), even though they were not afforded “an opportunity to express [their] observations.” They stressed the fact that the State published two conflicting judgments, i.e. the original and appellate judgments, and that this is not consistent with the spirit of the measure of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court, i.e. to “make the truth known, for Colombian society to know.” According to the representatives, the Judgment on reparations rendered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 2), “mentions that the State must publish the results of the investigation, and the result of the investigation is the final judgment, the one that becomes res judicata, […] and the judicial proceedings became absolutely final upon the rendering of the judgment of the Superior Court,” not upon the criminal review judgment [casación], as the latter judgment did not rule thereon. The representatives considered it necessary for the Court to “ask the State to arrange for [the] publication in a manner [such] that the measure of reparation truly fulfills its established purpose.” 14. That, at the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), the InterAmerican Commission noted that, “in general, measures of reparation are intended for the benefit of the victims and that, in the Commission’s view, this has always 7 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 7, 2009, Considering clause No. 7.