-16events that affected our children,” and also expressed the “hope that situations such as those that occurred at that time and that affected Salvadoran society would never happen again.” 10. That, in the ninth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005, the Court ordered the State to “publish, at least once, in the official gazette and in another national newspaper, Chapter 1, entitled “Introduction of the case,” Chapter III, entitled “Jurisdiction,” and Chapter VI, entitled “Proven facts,” as well as the operative paragraphs of the judgment” on merits, reparations and costs. The State has published these parts of the judgment and it has done so in both the official gazette and in another national newspaper. Nevertheless, when making this publication, in addition to the parts ordered, El Salvador included some chapters of the judgment on preliminary objections and the dissenting opinions of the judge ad hoc to the judgments on preliminary objections, and on merits, reparations and costs, and this was not included in the reparation ordered by the Court. The Court considers it necessary to indicate that when it establishes, as a measure of reparation, the obligation to publish some parts of the judgment, the Court selects the pertinent parts of the judgment that should be published in each specific case in order to ensure the optimum achievement of the purpose of the measure of reparation; consequently, it would have been preferable if El Salvador had only published what the Court ordered. The Court considers that, since the State made a publication that included, inter alia, the opinions of the judge ad hoc and, without justification and inequitably, did not publish the opinions prepared by the Court’s own judges, the State did not comply satisfactorily with the terms of the judgment. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Court considers that, to comply with this measure, El Salvador must publish again the parts of the said judgment on merits, reparations and costs ordered by the Court, and include all the opinions that the judges attached to the judgment. 11. That the Court has verified that El Salvador has complied partially with: (a) Creation of a web page to trace those who disappeared (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The page has been created and includes contact addresses and telephone numbers of the InterInstitutional Tracing Commission, and of State institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office, the National Civil Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Governance, the Ministry of Defense, the Chalatenango Trial Court, and the Salvadoran Institute for the Integral Development of Children and Adolescents. It also includes links to other web pages of institutions or civil associations and international organizations dedicated to tracing disappeared children and youths, such as Pro-Búsqueda, Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Red Latinoamericana de Desaparecidos and Federación Latinoamericana de Asociaciones de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos, as well as links to other international organizations and the addresses and telephone numbers of embassies and consulates accredited to El Salvador. With regard to Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz, the page contains their physical description at the time of their disappearance. However, regarding this measure, in the judgment the Court ordered that the page should contain all “existing information about the Serrano Cruz sisters and their next of kin.” Accordingly, the Court considers that all available information should be added, such as the possible place, date and circumstances of the disappearance of the Serrano Cruz sisters, as well as information on their next of kin; and