16 publication of the Judgment, that “in order for such measure [to be] really effective, the parts should be published in a font size and in the layout for the average citizen to be able to read it". They further asserted that "The State h [ad] determined a number of pages to be published, regardless of the space the texts ordered by the Court [could occupy]". The representatives did not refer to this measure of reparation in the observations of May 12, 2009, that is, after the alleged publication in the newspaper “El Espectador” in the month of October 2008. 53. That regarding the publication, the Commission “noted with great pleasure that said publication has been made under the conditions mentioned, promoting its impact within the population”. Nevertheless, it also observed "that the State has made no reference to the publication of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and therefore it waits for such information”. 54. That in the court records there is a copy of the publication dated Sunday, October 12, 2008 which complies with the requirements ordered in the Judgment. Even though the representatives did not present observations in that respect, the Commission considered that said publication confirms the compliance by the State with its obligation to publish the pertinent parts of the Judgment in a newspaper of national circulation. Nevertheless, the State has not referred to the publication of the Judgment in the Official Gazette. Therefore, this Tribunal deems that the State has partially complied with this obligation, inasmuch as it made the pertinent publication in a newspaper of national circulation and waits for information regarding the corresponding publication in the Official Gazette. * * * 55. That as to the obligation to pay the persons indicated in Appendixes I, II and III of the Judgment, within one year, in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reimburse the costs and expenses to the representatives, the State pointed out that “by means of Resolution 5898 of December 28, 2007 the Ministry of National Defense complied with this measure of reparation […]”. Furthermore, it indicated that “by means of Resolution Nº 2088 of May 27, 2008 of the Ministry of Defense, it was ordered the rectification of some mistakes of the first resolution of payment". The State emphasized that the payments corresponding to the minors “were made according to the terms stipulated [in] the Judgment". Moreover, the State pointed out that paragraph 358 of the Judgment presented some problems for the State, since it allowed new relatives of the victims to show up, after having distributed the corresponding compensations. However, it indicated that said problem was solved in the practice. 56. That the representatives pointed out that, by means of Resolution 5898 of December 28, 2007, “it was ordered the payment of the compensations corresponding to the beneficiaries of legal age, but no payment was ordered for the minors or the constitution of a trust [in their favor]". Said “resolution included most of the beneficiaries, but not all of them". They indicated that, "a petition was filed with the Ministry of Defense on [January 10] 2008 in order to look for an answer to the situation of the minors and those who only received a partial payment”. According to their the last observations of May 12, 2009, by means of Resolution 5898 of December 28, 2007, the State complied with “most of [the] payment of the compensations ordered by the Court" and "by means of Resolution 2088 of [May 27], 2008, it was ordered a deposit [...] in favor of some elderly people who died or due to different circumstances, did not show up to collect the payment[,], as well as in favor of the minors”. They indicated that on “February 22 [2008], it was made the payment [corresponding to the compensations for pecuniary and no—pecuniary damage, as well as