5 decision by the State to publish once again, the representatives stated they absolutely agreed with it. 13. The Commission pointed out that “it set[s] much store by […] the publication of the Judgment in the Official Gazette No. 114, Tome No 379, on June 19, 2008 and in the Diario El Mundo [El Mundo Newspaper] on May 13, 2008”. In the course of the public hearing it pointed out that “it had no more observations to make, beyond welcoming the attitude of the State in such direction”. 14. From what the parties report regarding publication of the pertinent parts of the Judgment in the Official Gazette, the Tribunal deems the State to have complied with such aspect of operative paragraph number six in the Judgment. The Court considers the publication of the Judgment to be a satisfaction measure that must also be understood as a guarantee measure against repetition of the facts in the instant case, which must be known by society in El Salvador. Complying with such order is a part of the obligations the State has as the outcome of its having ratified the American Convention and recognized the competence of this Tribunal. In that sense, the Tribunal notes the willingness and the commitment of the State to publish the Judgment once more in a newspaper with wide national coverage without incurring in the shortcomings of the former publication, as well as the agreement therewith expressed by the representatives. For which reasons, el Tribunal sets much store by the willingness of the State to effectively comply with the obligation to publish the Judgment in another newspaper of wide national coverage, and urges it to submit information thereon. 15. As regards operative paragraph number seven in the Judgment, wherein the obligation the State has to provide the medical, psychiatric, or psychological assistance that may be needed by José Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto (supra Having Seen Clause Number 1), in the course of the public hearing the State pointed out that in fact the medical needs of the victims had not been fully taken into account, for which reason it expressed its willingness to comply with such obligation. In view of the foregoing, on January 10, 2010, a coordination meeting had been promoted with the Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Pública [Public Health and Emergency Assistance], for the purpose of learning which were the medical needs, the sufferings and the opinions of the victims and of proposing the ways and means of providing such services. The information obtained would be submitted to Public Health and Emergency Assistance authorities for them to decide on the ways and means to provide, free of charge, the medical and psychological services that meet the needs of the victims. It added that such action would be taken forthwith and it undertook to report periodically on the progress thereof. On the other hand, it pointed out that it was prepared to explore the possibility of providing alternative services different from the traditional health care services. As to providing psychiatric care, it indicated that no progress has been made, but that the matter is on the agenda, and that the State is interested in providing it in such manner as the Garcia Prieto family members may request. 16. The representatives pointed out that the State has not complied with this point in the Judgment. In the course of the public hearing they stated that the maladies of the victims were serious, for which reason they did not trust the services the national health system could provide. They further stated that the national health system wanted to start the treatment with a diagnosis, even though the victims already had one, and were under advanced treatment in the private system, for which reason they considered it was not