III – Obligation to publish the judgment on the electronic sites of the Union and of the government of the state of Paraná 42. We proposed a significant innovation in this ruling, which was accepted by the Court as a measure of satisfaction and a guarantee of non-repetition. This was the obligation imposed on Brazil to publish the summary and the entire content of this judgment on Internet websites of the Union and the state of Paraná, at least until full compliance with the judgment (minimum obligation imposed) or longer, which could be equal to the duration of the cases to be tried, calculated from the date of the facts until the publication of this judgment, or (b) definitively (ability and commitment of the State). 43. It is a simple, inexpensive means, resulting in better and more widespread dissemination than the burdensome publications in newspapers, which could be substituted in future decisions. 44. It is a recourse that is fully adapted to contemporary life; one that expands the scope of the non-pecuniary reparation to the victims and promotes more effectively the disincentivation of the repetition of conducts and omissions similar to those that resulted in the violations recognized in this specific case, in view of the facility of access to the contents of the Court’s judgment. 45. Since it is evident that access to the global Internet is increasingly more frequent and of easier access to everyone throughout the world, the deliberations of the Court should not fail to consider among its measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, ordering the measure that, in a pioneering fashion, is established in this case. 46. The power of the pedagogical nature of the judgment is undeniable, as is its prompt distribution given the speed not only of access, but also of the dissemination of information by Internet, in addition to the ease with which the State can comply with the said obligation by the State. III.a. Regarding the time limit 47. Regarding the time limit, the Court has preferred to leave this open, trusting in the State to execute the judgment, and we agree; however, this opinion leaves a record; a suggestion promoting citizenship, democracy and human rights. Despite this, we understand that judicial decisions should include clear, specific and objective rulings that leave no margin for misinterpretation by those executing them, as can be appreciated from the unforgettable lessons of Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, former President of this Court, either when he speaks of overcoming the traditional idea of the optional clause of obligatory jurisdiction, or when he discusses the “compétence de la compétence,” in which he advocates that the Court should reduce the sphere of discretion in the execution of judgments up until the complete satisfaction of the judicial ruling, thus reducing the possibility of executions being obstructed by the States. Since we trust that in this case, there are indications that the State will comply amply, we adhere to the unanimity. III.b. Regarding the form and the place of publication 48. Also, with regard to the form of dissemination by Internet and the place of publication (on what site and of which public entity), the Court preferred not to establish this directly, trusting that the State would be better able to indicate this in order to ensure the greatest dissemination of the information, which will be analyzed by the Court subsequently, when monitoring execution of the judgment. Roberto Figueiredo Caldas