9 establishing: i) the budget available for the State to handle cases involving human rights violations committed during the armed conflict; ii) whether such budget is sufficient to meet investigation-related needs, particularly those connected to the instant case; and iii) should it be insufficient, the measures required to increase its amount; b) Appoint one CNSAFJ officer to establish a schedule to work with the High Courts in order to move forward the cases involving mass, systematic human rights violations. Such officer shall, together with COPREDEH, submit a report on the schedule agreed upon with the High Courts and the methods to be used to achieve the proposed goals; c) Appoint an Army military intelligence officer to act as liaison, who may be contacted by the Public Prosecutor and the court in charge of the domestic investigations in the instant case, as well as CNSAFJ, COPREDEH, the victims in the instant case or their representatives to ask for information with a view to finding out who the responsible parties are or locating the remains of Molina-Theissen. Within a period of four months, together with COPREDEH, such officer shall submit a report on the methodology and the schedule set to encourage the military’s cooperation to move the investigation forward; and d) Report on the number of disciplinary, administrative or criminal actions taken pursuant to the Guatemalan laws against any officers who refuse to cooperate to comply with these orders. 33. That the Tribunal would like to clarify that the work of CNSAFJ, COPREDEH and the aforementioned military intelligence liaison officer may not be limited to the sending of official communications transcribing these orders; rather, such officers, who shall receive the State’s full support, are to create the conditions required for the information sent to CNSAFJ and, subsequently, to this Court, to be accurate, complete, reliable and useful, i.e. for it to provide qualitative and quantitative parameters to follow up on compliance with these orders. * * * 34. That, as regards the publication of the relevant portions of the Judgments on merits and reparations (fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations), in its order of July 10, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause No. 3) the Court confirmed that paragraphs 40.7 to 40.19 of the Judgment on merits were not featured in the publications in the Diario Oficial de Centro América or in the “El Periódico” newspaper, and it thus asked the State to provide information on the subject. 35. That the State reported that, on February 25, 2008, it had the Judgment published again in the “Diario de Centroamérica,” “and publication of the Judgment in the newspaper with wider circulation is still pending.” The State submitted a copy of the publication. 36. That the representatives provided the Tribunal with a communication from the Molina-Theissens, of July 16, 2008, whereby they stated that: Our family is satisfied with the publication of paragraphs 40.7 and 40.19 of the [J]udgment in the Diario Oficial, which had to be repeated as those paragraphs had not been included in the first publication […]. Accordingly, we do not find it necessary for a new publication to be made in a paid field, considering how expensive this would be, and we thus expect – as informed to us by COPREDEH this past June – that the money that was to be used for such purpose will instead be used to provide monetary reparation to other families. 37. That the Commission merely “took note” of the statements made by the State and the Molina-Theissens.