4 7. Regarding operative paragraph six of the Judgment, which manifests that the State must publish, within six months of notification of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another nationally circulated newspaper in the Dominican Republic, both the section entitled “Proven Facts”, without the corresponding footnotes, and also the operative paragraphs of the Judgment, in its reports of June 22 and November 20, 2009, the State reported that it published the corresponding parts of the Judgment in the newspaper “El Nuevo Diario” on June 15, 2009, and in the Official Gazette on September 29, 2009, pursuant to the representatives’ request that the victims’ initials be cited in the publication rather than their full names. Therefore, the State considered that it complied with this operative paragraph. 8. During the private hearing the representatives recognized that the State published the pertinent parts of the Judgment in the newspaper “El Nuevo Diario”, and subsequently, in its observations January 21, 2010, they stated that they were in favor of the publication made by the State in the Official Gazette, hence they considered that the State complied with this operative paragraph of the Judgment. 9. The Inter-American Commission, in its observations dated July 21, 2009 and March 26, 2010, stated that it saw the publications made by the State in the “El Nuevo Diario” newspaper and in the Official Gazette, respectively, and considered that “the State had complied with the obligation to publish as stipulated by the Court in its Judgment.” 10. Based on information submitted by the parties, the Court observes that the State published the pertinent parts of the Judgment in “El Nuevo Diario” newspaper on June 15, 2009 and in the Official Gazette on September 29, 2009. Therefore, the Court deems that operative paragraph six of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1) has been complied with and acknowledged its full compliance. * * * 11. Regarding operative paragraph seven, which orders the State to organize a public act acknowledging its international responsibility and apologize to the victims Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, and to Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi and Teresa Tucent Mena, within six months, the State reported in the private hearing of July 8, 2010, as well as in its September 14, 2009 report, that, with the help of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it began to make arrangements for the public act acknowledging its responsibility and to apologize, and thus contacted the representatives of the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; however, the parties have still not been able to coordinate the corresponding dates. 12. In its observations dated June 18, 2009 and January 21, 2010, the representatives indicated that they held a meeting with State agents, and that the agreement reached was verbally expressed to the Court during the hearing, without the State’s objection. According to the representatives, the State agents were going to take the proposal to the Dominican Republic and later notify them “of the results of the process.” In addition, they agreed that the act would be planned and held within a period of no less than one month and no greater than three months. To date the State has not made contact with them. 13. During the private hearing, the Commission highlighted the importance of coordination between the parties in order to carry out the public act, and referred to the meetings held by the parties to this end. The Commission emphasized the objective of the public apology as well as the importance of its satisfaction effect. 14. In consideration of the parties’ manifestations, the Court states that there is a rapprochement between the victims and/or their representatives and the State so as come to an agreement regarding the performance of this public act. However, pursuant to paragraph 260 of the Judgment, this measure had to be implemented within a period of six months as of