24. The representatives stated that the information provided by the State is disjointed, making it impossible to assess the level of compliance and determine if human rights courses are being offered to all students of the various military academies, if courses are annual or biannual, or if they form part of the permanent training curricula of the armed forces. They also stated that the "Programa Patrón de Enseñanza de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario" [Master Program for Education in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law] was approved in 2002, prior to the Judgment of the Court, and that the reports "refer to the academic per[i]od of 2008 and the information is yet to be updated." They expressed the need to know if the training is reaching the upper levels of the military because from the information provided by the State it can be deduced that of 3106 people trained, 2371 are conscripts. Finally, they stated that, as agreed at the private hearing, they will meet soon to discuss this operative paragraphin detail, so that both parties negotiate the key points to conduct human rights training. 25. The Commission valued the information provided, however, it observed that it had not mentioned the number of members of the Armed Forces trained or their rank, and that the State "goes off data from 2008, without any documentation on the training programs or regular courses from 2009 and so far in 2010. " Also, it deemed it necessary that the State report on the regularity and continuity of the courses. 26. The Court takes note of the use, as a core text in the“Programa Patrón de Enseñanza de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario” [Master Program for Education in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law], of the "Handbook on Humanitarian Standards - Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Forces," as well as the distribution of educational material such as the "Soldier's Guide" and "Human Rights ...everyone's commitment." Furthermore, the Court values the will expressed by the parties to hold a meeting to obtain information necessary to verify the regular curriculum and who leads the training courses on human rights. e) Regarding operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment 27. Regarding the obligation to publish in a nationally circulated newspaper, on a sole occasion, the chapter on the proven facts of the Judgment, without the footnotes of the corresponding pages, and the operative paragraphs of the Judgment(operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment), the State reported that it published the article in the newspaper La Nación on October 18, 2007, and attached a copy of it. 28. Representatives and the Commission deem this point to be complied with. 29. The Court notes that the State has provided documentation that supports the publication of the chapter on proven facts from the Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes and with the operative part of the Judgment in the newspaper La Nación on 18 October 2007, thus declaring that the State has complied fully with this reparation measure.21 f) 21 Regarding operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment According to the provisions of the Order of October 30, 2008, issued by this Court as part of monitoring compliance with this case, the State sent, on a previous opportunity, a copy of the publication of the proven facts and the operative points of the Judgment in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Paraguay on May 11, 2007. Cf.Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 20, Considering Clause twenty-nine.