7 17. That the Commission values “the significance and prominence of the ceremony performed by the State […] in order to mitigate the damage and to recognize the hardship inflicted on the victims and their next of kin.” 18. That the Court praises the actions taken so far and the willingness to coordinate the planning of the event with the victims, as well as the enthusiastic participation of state authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal desires to limelight the generous broadcasting that the act of acknowledgment enjoyed in many communications media, because it helps preserve the historic memory about human rights violations, while promoting a means to prevent these acts from happening again. In this sense, the Court highly welcomes the actions taken by the State and considers that it has fully complied with this operative paragraph. * * * Representation of the victims on “El Ojo que Llora” (The Crying Eye) memorial 19. That in relation to the duty to ensure, within the term of one year, that the victims in the instant case are represented in the memorial named “El Ojo que Llora” (The Crying Eye) if they are not represented so far and provided their relatives so desire (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment,) the State informed that the names of ten victims were engraved on the monument on December 20, 2007 and that, therefore, it considers that it has complied with this operative paragraph. 20. That the representatives chose to make no comments on this issue. 21. That the Commission welcomed that all the difficulties surrounding compliance with this operative paragraph have been overcome.” 22. That the Court praises that the names of the victims have been engraved on the “El Ojo que Llora” (The Crying Eye) memorial within the term set out in the Judgment, this way complying with this operative paragraph. * * * Publication of the Judgment 23. That in relation to the duty to publish certain sections of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another national daily newspaper (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment,) the State informed that the publication was made in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on June 24, 2007 in the terms of Supreme Resolution No. 120-2007-JUS dated June 23, 2007, that also authorized the publication of the relevant parts of the Judgment in a national daily newspaper, while the financial resources for said publication are still to be awarded. Later, the State reported that “the authorities […] are currently devoted to the necessary arrangements for the publication” which is still pending. For this reason, the State considered that it has partly complied with this operative paragraph. 24. That the representatives pointed out that, even though the relevant parts of the Judgments were published in the Official Gazette, the publication was made beyond the deadline set out by the Court. They also concluded that the State had failed to fully comply with this operative paragraph because the publication in a national daily newspaper was still pending.