7 19. That in the course of the hearing the Commission expressed that the public act of acknowledgement was irrelevant for the satisfaction of the victims and their next of kin, because apparently they were neither informed about such act, nor asked to take part in it, for which reason it was unsatisfactory. 20. That in the course of the hearing, the State affirmed that information was given to the next of kin of the victims about the public apology and that on the national chain address some excerpts of the documentary film in which one of their next of kin took part were shown. 21. That in other cases, considering the particular circumstances thereof,8 the Court has considered that the State may comply with the act whereby it acknowledges responsibility by taking a number of actions different from the ones proposed in the operative paragraphs, as long as they tend to serve the purpose of the reparations provided, in an appropriate way, commensurate with the seriousness of the violations and with the circumstances in each case. 22. That the Court determined that the public act acknowledging responsibility should tend to preserve the memory of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña, to satisfy the next of kin and to avoid repetition of similar events. 23. That in order to serve such purpose, the act by the State should be held in the following manner: a) in public; b) acknowledging responsibility for the extrajudicial execution of the victims and for the other violations perpetrated in the instant case; c) in the presence of their next of kin, if such were their will, and d) with high-ranking State officials taking part. 24. That this Court finds that both the publication of the public apology effected on February 29, 2008 in the El Telégrafo newspaper, and that producing the documentary film called “el derecho a la verdad” [the right to truth] and the showing it in cinema forums attended by experts and by the next of kin of the victims, are actions fostering preservation of the historical memory of the human rights violations perpetrated in the instant case and promoting such actions to be uprooted, especially from the community and from the social environment. The former was broadcast in a national mass communications medium, while the latter was an audiovisual show targeting small audiences in different cities in the country, among which the City of Guayaquil, where the extrajudicial executions took place. In such events, according to the reports by the State, those attending had the opportunity to interact with the next of kin of the victims and with experts in the field of human rights. Therefore, as regards historical memory, the mechanism set up by Ecuador, although different from the one proposed in the Judgment, does amount to compliance with the operative paragraph, for it is appropriate and commensurate to the seriousness of the violation for which reparation is sought. 25. That as regards the act of acknowledgment and public apology held on December 10, 2008, although it is true that it was not dedicated to the case of Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Jose Miguel Caicedo Cobeña and Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña only, while going over the recording supplied by the State it can be seen that 8 Cf., inter alia, Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering Clause Number Nine, subparagraph b); Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering Clause Number Nine, subparagraph d); Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering Clauses Number Thirty-Five to Number Thirty-Eight and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Forty-One.