section C of Chapter XII appeared incorrectly as C.1”; it also indicated that this “does not affect the substance or the purpose of the publications because no paragraphs have been omitted in the proven facts or in the operative paragraphs of the judgment.” In addition, it indicated that it would publish an erratum in El Periódico5 in this regard. The State also affirmed that the paragraphs had not been numbered in any other publication that the Court had ordered it to make, and argued that, in those cases, the Court had decided that “the State has complied” with the publication. Lastly, it indicated that, as of April 26, 2010, the entire judgment in this case has been available on the COPREDEH webpage (www.copredeh.gob.gt). 29. The representatives indicated that, as they had stated in their communication of April 20, 2011, the publications of the relevant parts had some errors, because in the “publication in the Diario de Centroamérica section C of Chapter XII had been omitted, […] as well as paragraph 255.” Also, “in El Periódico,” it “erroneously” referred “to section C of Chapter XII as C.1, and omitted sub-paragraph C.1, as well as paragraph 255.” Regarding the State’s obligation to comply with publishing the judgment on an official website, the representatives indicated that the “hyperlink available on the said webpage does not include the complete name of the judgment delivered by the Court. Similarly, a brief summary should be included on this website in which the State of Guatemala acknowledges its international responsibility for human rights violations.” They also considered that “for this reparation to be adequate, it must at least include the complete name of the judgment, because a partial reference prevents the correct identification of the published document and therefore the proposed scope of this measure is not achieved.” Lastly, in their observations of January 19, 2011, the representatives indicated that the “problems regarding the publication of the entire judgment on the [COPREDEH] webpage have been rectified.” 30. The Inter-American Commission took note of the information presented and reiterated that, “despite the omissions pointed out by the representatives, the publications that have been made […] represent an important step towards compliance with this measure of reparation. The Commission is awaiting information from the State regarding the erratum to be published, so as to be able “to verify full compliance regarding the publications.” In relation to the integral publication on the website, the Commission appreciated the measures taken by the State. 31. Based on the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that the State has published the entire judgment on the website. Regarding the publication of the relevant parts of the judgment, the Court underlines that, on February 5 and 14, 2010, the State published the relevant parts of the judgment in the Diario de Centroamérica and El Periódico, respectively. In addition, it notes that, according to the information provided by the parties, the State acknowledged that, owing to an involuntary error, it named section C of Chapter XII erroneously and omitted subsection “C.1) Satisfaction.” In this regard, the State itself indicated that it would publish an erratum to rectify the said errors (supra considering paragraph 28). The Court considers that this omission and the error in the designation of the section do not affect the essence of the purpose of publishing the relevant parts of the judgment. Furthermore, the representatives indicated that, in the publication made by the State, 5 Cf. Erratum: “Clarification of the publication of February 14, 2010, of the Dos Erres Massacre. Section C of Chapter XII was incorrectly designated C.1 Measures of satisfaction, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition, whereas the correct designation is C) Measures of satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. Since subsection “C.1) Satisfaction” was omitted, it should be added.” 10