6 15. Furthermore, despite the inadmissibility of the request for rectification based on Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it advisable to recall that the parties may require this correction “within one month of notification of the judgment or order in question.” This time frame, which is applicable to the parties but not to possible corrections that the Court could make motu propio, also expired some time ago, since the request was submitted on January 15, 2010; in other words, more than five months after notification of the judgment. 16. Based on the above, the Court finds that it has clarified the inexistence of the possible error alleged by the State, and the scope of the provisions of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure. * * * 17. In addition, regarding the State’s allegations concerning the supposed lack of effectiveness of the publication of the judgment, the Court finds that, despite the technical language that may have been used in the ruling, this does not mean that its content cannot be understood by the general public. Furthermore, neither do the size of the typeface and the length of the publication constitute reasonable arguments to assert that they prevent those who are interested from reading the text. To the contrary, the possibility of achieving the most extensive understanding of its judgments is one of the Court’s concerns when drafting its rulings, since it seeks to provide interested readers with a clear account of the facts of the case and the reasons on which the Court has based itself to attribute the human rights violations to the State in question. 18. Regarding the allegedly elevated costs of the publication, first, the Court observes that the publication of the judgment constitutes a measure of satisfaction that has public repercussions and a different nature from the measures of compensation, such as the compensatory payments for non-pecuniary damage ordered for the victims. Hence, the costs involved in implementing the said measures cannot be compared, because they have a different scope and purpose. Second, the Court considers that the supposedly elevated cost of the publication cannot justify failure to comply with this measure, especially due to the nature of the facts of this case. In this regard, the Court recalls that it has been proved that private telephone conversations were recorded, without fulfilling the legal requirements, and disseminated by State agents, so that they were broadcast on the news program with the largest audience in Brazil. Hence, to contribute to the integral reparation of the victims, the content of the judgment must have public repercussions proportionate to the said dissemination. 19. In addition, the Court finds that the alternative forms of compliance proposed by the State would not have the same scope as the publication made in the newspapers in the terms established in the judgment. In this regard: (i) Brazil did not provide any information on the scope and the audience of the official radio program; (ii) publication of the judgment on web pages was already ordered in the judgment, and (iii) the mere publication of a summary of the judgment on the equivalent of a quarter-page, which also includes matters such as the importance of the interAmerican system is not acceptable. This is because a summary of that length would not present the facts of the case and the violations found in detail; it would omit relevant information that appears in the judgment, and it would not set out the content of the judgment with the significance required by the nature of the human rights violations found in this case. Furthermore, with regard to Brazil’s affirmation that the inter-American system is not known in that country, the Court recalls that,