acknowledged; (d) high-ranking State officials were present; (e) some of the victims and their family members were present; (f) it had national coverage and dissemination, and (g) the travel expenses of Gregoria Herminia Recinos Contreras and her family group were assumed by the State. In this regard, the Court finds that the ceremony organized by El Salvador was appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the violations that the act was intended to redress, and that it had the effect of recovering the memory and recognizing the dignity of the victims. Accordingly, the Court assesses the State’s efforts positively and considers that the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment has been complied with fully. g) Obligation to designate three schools: one with the name of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, another with the name of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, and a third with the name of José Rubén Rivera Rivera (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 49. The State reported that it had held meetings with the representatives during which proposals to comply with this measure have been evaluated, with the representatives presenting modifications to the initial proposals at least twice, owing to the change in domicile of one of the families, and based on consultations at different times with the members of the Contreras family. In this regard, the State had received the proposal on the content of the plaques to be unveiled in the schools on November 1, 2012. 50. The representatives explained that, after consulting the families in July, they had presented an initial written proposal for the designation of the three schools with the names of the children in this case. The proposal was modified because, that same month, Serapio Cristián Contreras was found and he asked that the school where his son and daughter were studying in the city of San Vicente be chosen; the State was advised of this on September 6, 2012, once María Maura Contreras and Gregoria Herminia Recinos Contreras had given their agreement. In the case of the Mejía Ramírez family, “a different school from the one originally suggested was proposed, because the first one was located in Cerro Pando canton, a place where few families live, while the new one is located in the San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán.” The final proposal was presented on September 20, 2012, and, to date, the State had not forwarded information on the schools that were approved. The representatives also indicated that, on October 30, 2012, they had presented to the State their proposal for the content of the plaques to be unveiled in each school, without having received any reply on this point. Consequently, they asked the Court to consider that this measure of reparation had not been complied with, to continue monitoring this measure of reparation, and to urge the State to expedite the pending measures in order to implement it promptly. 51. The Commission noted that the State had indicated that it was taking the necessary steps to comply with this aspect of the Judgment. It awaited compliance within the two-year time frame established by the Court and the corresponding information from the State. 52. The Court assesses positively that El Salvador was taking the necessary steps to comply with this measure of reparation, and notes that the practical effect of this measure of satisfaction depends, to a great extent, on coordination between the State and the victims. Consequently, the Court urges the State to take all the pending measures in order to comply with this measure and decides that the State must present complete, detailed and updated information on the steps taken, forwarding a copy of the corresponding documents. 17