5 20. With respect to the obligation to publish the Judgment as ordered by the Court (ninth operative paragraph), the State informed that the publications were made on September 10 and 25, 2008, in the Official Bulletin (Boletín Oficial) and the Clarín newspaper, respectively, and it submitted a copy of them. Moreover, the State indicated that the selection of the newspaper of widespread national circulation “was made in consideration of the request made by the petitioners in this regard.” 21. The representatives confirmed that “the corresponding publications were made in the indicated newspapers.” 22. The Commission observed that “according to the briefs presented by both parties, this order should be declared as complied with.” 23. The Tribunal observes, in accordance with the evidence provided and taking into account the information presented by the parties, that the State has fully complied with the publications ordered in the Judgment. * * * 24. In relation to the obligation to carry out an act of public acknowledgment of its responsibility (tenth operative paragraph), the State indicated that on September 11, 2009, it carried out an act “within the framework of the Extraordinary Session of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights held in [Argentina],” where the President of the Nation announced that “in compliance with the decision against the State in the Kimel case [...] she ha[d] decided to send the Nation’s Congress a draft bill wherein the crimes of libel and slander are removed from matters related to freedom of expression.” It noted that “the exact words of the [...] President [of the Republic], in a public ceremony transmitted through a national public broadcast, of such importance as the act carried out on September 11, 2009, constituted an unequivocal public acknowledgment of Argentina’s responsibility.” Additionally, it noted that “without prejudice to the fact that the public event mentioned above was carried out, the Foreign Ministry contacted the pastor in charge of the Church of the Palotinos, at the request of Mr. Kimel so that the “the event be carried out in the Church [...] where the events mentioned in his book took place.” Finally, the State affirmed that said act would take place in late 2009. 25. The representatives indicated that “the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility [at the Church of the Palotinos] had still not been carried out.” Likewise, they stated that “the State’s attitude was surprising” inasmuch as it considers the act of September 11, 2009 as the act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in the present case. They affirmed that the victim was not informed of the said act and that he only “became aware [of it], once it was carried out, through the media”. They insisted that, after such ceremony, “the State undertook, in an explicit manner, to perform the act of acknowledgment in accordance with the victim’s wishes.” Therefore, they requested that the State take the necessary measures to carry out the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility “in accordance with the victim’s expectations and ensuring that when [the] act does take place, both the daughter and mother of Mr. Kimel be formally convened.” 26. The Commission observed that the ceremony held on September 11, 2009, mentioned by the State, “did not correspond to the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility referred to in the [J]udgment of the Court.” It stressed that the ceremony held on September 11, 2009, was held without the presence of the victim and without him being aware that his case would be mentioned. Similarly, the Commission gave value to the efforts made by the State to perform the act according to the victim’s wishes and considered it appropriate that the victim’s family and representatives be informed of the details of such act sufficiently in advance, as well as that their expectations be taken into account, in view of the fact that “the purpose of measures of satisfaction is the moral