-12- (g) Regarding the State’s obligation to organize a public act acknowledging its responsibility for the violations declared in [the] judgment and in reparation to the victims and their next of kin, “the act that took place did not correspond to the purpose of the reparation […. E]ven though a brief mention was made of the Serrano Cruz case and the next of kin were informed that the act ordered by the Court would take place, this act stressed the case of the person who was reunited with her next of kin, and she even participated in the act giving her testimony, an opportunity that was not even offered to those to whom the act of reparation was supposedly addressed.” It “did not consider that the act held to publicize that matter was a measure that complied with the State’s obligation to acknowledge its responsibility and the facts established in the judgment, […] and to make reparation to the victims and their next of kin”; (h) Regarding the obligation to pay the compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, and the amounts established for reimbursement of costs and expenses, it “hopes that the obstacles to making the payments can be overcome and that the State will coordinate with the victims and their representatives the best way to execute them without further delay, bearing in mind that the amounts have already been allocated and deposited”; and (i) Regarding the obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the reported facts in this case, identify and punish those responsible and conduct a genuine search for the victims, and to publicize the result of the criminal proceedings, it “observes that the State has failed to provide specific information on the measures tending to comply with this reparation effectively [….] It is important that the investigations conducted in this case are aimed at seeking the truth and do not once again constitute mere formalities destined to fail.” Moreover, regarding the stipulation made by the Court in paragraph 173 of the judgment to the effect that “the public officials who hinder, deviate or unduly delay investigations to clarify the truth about the facts must be punished, applying the provisions of domestic law in this respect with the greatest rigor,” it observed “with great concern” the information presented by the representatives regarding the appointment of the aforementioned prosecutor to the Human Rights Unit of the Salvadoran Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 7. The brief of July 10, 2006, in which the representatives “provided additional information to the State’s report of April 5, 2006.” In summary, they indicated that: (a) Regarding the obligation to pay the compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, “on May 22, 2006, the State of El Salvador paid the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims, next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz.” “The State has advised that it is willing to pay the costs to Pro-Búsqueda; this has not been accomplished for administrative reasons within the Association”; (b) Regarding the publication, at least once, in the official gazette and in another national newspaper of Chapters I, III and VI, as well as the operative paragraphs of the judgment, “given the characteristics of the publication made by the State of El Salvador, this aspect was not complied with: because the publication included some chapters of the preliminary objections and the