forced disappearance of persons,” and were not “aimed at Public Ministry agents from the Attorney General’s Office or at judges of the Judicial Branch of the Federation.” They also stated that the training scheduled for the first two months of 2011, to be led by the former member of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, still has not been carried out. 31. The Commission stated that it “value[d] the activities carried out by the State regarding promotion and training on human rights aimed at officials of various State institutions.” Additionally, it “considere[d] that the efforts to address the special requirements established by the Court in the [J]udgment should be incentivized.” 32. The Court observes that in its Judgment it specified the type of activities (as well as the subjects they should cover and the persons who should participate in them) that the 19 State must impart in order to comply with this reparation measure. The Court values that the State trains its officials on human rights issues. However, the Tribunal observes that the State has extensively referred to a series of activities that are not related to the reparation ordered in the Judgment. The only concrete information submitted by the State related to its compliance with the specific orders of the Court is that related to the planning of a training session to be imparted to personnel of the Attorney General's Office by the former member of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances during the first two months of 2011, as well as the attendance of personnel of that body to a seminar carried out in Antigua, Guatemala. The Court was not informed of activities aimed at the training of judges of the Judicial Branch of the Federation on this subject, nor on the permanent courses or programs on “the limits of the military jurisdiction [and] the rights to due process and judicial protection.” The Court highlights the importance of the activities ordered as guarantees of non-repetition, as they have a reach that goes beyond that of this specific case. Thus, the State must submit concrete information to the Court on the measures carried out to strictly comply with this aspect of the Judgment to fulfill the aims of the reparation measure. F) Obligation to publish the Judgment in the Official Gazette of the Federation and in another widely circulated national newspaper, as well as in the web page of the Attorney General’s Office (Operative Paragraph 13 of the Judgment) 33. The State reported that on February 17, 2010, “paragraphs 1 to 7, 52 to 66, and 114 to 358, as well as the Operative Paragraphs of the Judgment, were published without footnotes” in the Official Gazette of the Federation and in the El Universal newspaper. It submitted these publications to the Tribunal. Additionally, it indicated that on “January 21, 2010, the Attorney General’s Office published the [J]udgment issued on November 23, 2009 on its web page” and it specified the corresponding web address.20 Finally, in response to statements made by the petitioners with respect to the visibility of the publication on the Attorney General's Office web page, the State indicated that it “took the measures necessary so that the [J]udgment could be accessed from the home page of the Attorney General's Office.” 34. The representatives affirmed that the State “unilaterally published the Judgment.” They also indicated that they were informed of the publication the day after it was carried 19 20 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 347. http://www.pgr.gob.mx/prensa/2007/docs08/sentenciacoidh.pdf. 12