2

11.
The Court shall monitor implementation of th[e] Judgment and will deem the
case closed when the State has fully complied with the terms of this judgment. Within
one year of notification of th[e] judgment, the State shall provide the Court with a
report on the measures adopted to comply with it, in the terms of paragraph 259 of
th[e] Judgment.
[…]

2.
The communication submitted by the representatives of the victims and their
next of kin (hereinafter the “representatives”) on September 29, 2005, requesting
the Court to “order the State to omit the names of victims Dilcia Yean and Violeta
Bosico in the publication of the [J]udgment” of the Court delivered on September 8,
2005, as a means to safeguard safety and humane and moral integrity of the victims
based on the concerns expressed by Mrs. Yean and Mrs. Bosico and their next of kin
regarding their personal safety.
3.
The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter the “Secretariat”) of
October 7, 2005, wherein, following instructions of the Court, it informed the parties
that the request filed by the representatives on September 29, 2005, was submitted
after the Judgment had been signed and the opinions had been delivered, for it was
not possible to omit the names of the victims therein. Nevertheless, the Dominican
Republic (hereinafter the “State” or the “Dominican Republic”) was required to “take
any necessary step to comply with the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment
[…] on publication of the relevant parts thereof, and omit the names of the girls and
their next of kin, and name their initials instead.”
4.
The reports submitted by the State on April 5 and 28 and November 2, 2006,
February 19, 2007 and November 21, 2007, whereby it submitted information on the
means of compliance with the provisions of the Judgment delivered by the Court on
September 8, 2005 (hereinafter the “Judgment”), and stated, inter alia, that:
a)
with regard to the sixth and seventh operative paragraphs referring to
the request of the Court to omit the names of the girls and their next of kin
and name their initials instead in compliance with sixth operative paragraph
of the Judgment, it stated that in granting the representatives request to
amend the Judgment for such purposes, the Court impliedly “repealed the
seventh operative paragraph insofar it is illogic” to organize a public act
acknowledging the State’s international responsibility and apologizing to the
victims whose “identities would be revealed and the [victims´] concerns
about their safety would increase if not made by other means;”
b)
it requested recommendations on the means of compliance with said
operative paragraph because it was aware of the fact that “as they are
obliged to omit the names in the publication, photographs or television
images should not be published either so as to prevent Dominican authorities
from being accused of having violated the request;” and
c)
it stated that it had complied with the payments for non-pecuniary
damage in favor of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, and the payment for costs
and expenses in favor of Leonidas Oliven Yean and Tiramen Bosico Cofi.
5.
The briefs of the representatives of March 27, May 5 and December 4, 2006
and November 27, 2007, whereby they submitted comments on the means of
compliance with the Judgment and stated, inter alia, that:

Select target paragraph3