10 “Day dedicated to the children disappeared during the armed conflict” (supra Having seen paragraphs 5(f), 6(f) and 7(f)), mentioning the phenomenon of disappearances explicitly in the name of the day; (b) Payment of the amounts established for the reimbursement of costs and expenses (fourteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment of March 1, 2005).5 According to the State and the representatives, the State paid the costs and expenses due to the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda on September 27, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraphs 5(h) and 6(h)). From the information submitted by the State (supra Having seen paragraph 5(h)) and the representatives,6 the Court has determined that the State had advised its willingness to make the payments of the costs to Pro-Búsqueda as of late March 2006;7 however for administrative reasons within the Association, the payment could not be made. Consequently, the State deposited the amount in a bank savings account, until the payment could be made. In this regard, in their brief of February 27, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraph 6(h)), the representatives indicated that the State “had not paid the interest accrued on the compensation paid to the Serrano Cruz family and on the procedural costs and expenses of the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, while this was deposited in the bank.” In this regard, the Court recalls that paragraph 216 of the Judgment, stipulated that “if the State should delay payment, it shall pay interest on the amount owed, corresponding to banking interest on arrears in El Salvador”; therefore, if the delay in making the said payment to Pro-Búsqueda cannot be attributed to the State but rather to the Association, the State does not have to pay interest on it, but only on the amount established in paragraph 207 of the Judgment, since the State did not delay payment. 10. That the Court has verified obligation: that El Salvador has partially complied with its (a) To create a web page to trace those who disappeared (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment of March 1, 2005). Taking into account the contents of its Order of September 22, 2006,8 and the information that the State subsequently added to the page (supra Having seen paragraph 5(c)), the Court considers that, in general terms, the web page created by the State is in compliance with the parameters stipulated in paragraphs 189 to 191 of the Judgment. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the State should present information on the measures it has adopted to promote the establishment and development of an international search network, in the terms of paragraph 191 of the Judgment.9 5 In its Order of September 22, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 2), the Court decided that the State had partially complied with the reimbursement of costs and expenses, since it had paid the amount corresponding to CEJIL and the payment to the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda remained pending. 6 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Having seen paragraph 7(a) and Considering paragraph 11(b). 7 On March 30, 2006, the period of one year established in the Judgment for the State to pay the compensation for costs and expenses expired. 8 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph 11(a). 9 In paragraph 191 of the Judgment, the Court decided that it “considered it essential that, using this web page, the State should adopt the necessary measures to coordinate national links with the different governmental