9. The State must implement, within a reasonable time, permanent education programs on human rights addressed to members of the intelligence services, the Armed Forces, as well as judges and prosecutors, under the terms of paragraphs 193 of [the] Judgment. 10. The State must publish, within six months, as of notice of this Judgment, once, in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with widespread circulation, paragraphs 30 to 203 and the operative paragraphs of [the] Judgment, under the terms of paragraph 194 of [the] Judgment. 11. The State must organize, within the term of six months, as of notice of this Judgment, a public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility for the enforced disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro and to apologize to him and his next-of-kin, under the conditions and terms of paragraphs 198 to 200 of [the] Judgment. 12. The State must erect a plaque in the Museum of Memory, in the presence of the next-of-kin, if they so wish, in a public act, within the term of two years, as of notice of [the] Judgment, under the conditions and terms of paragraphs 201 of [the] Judgment 13. The State must adopt the necessary measures to provide, immediately as of notice of this Judgment, the next-of-kin of Mr. Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, with the appropriate treatment, by means of health public services, for as long as they need it and including the medicines, under the conditions and terms of paragraphs 203 of [the] Judgment. 14. The State must pay Félix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña, Marly Arleny Anzualdo Castro and Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro the amounts determined in paragraphs 210, 214, 222 and 230 of this Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and reimbursement of costs and expenses, as it may correspond, within the term of one year as of notice of [the] Judgment, under the terms and conditions of paragraphs 231 to 238 [t]herein. 2. The brief filed by the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on July 30, 2010, 2 and the reports of May 29, July 5, and August 13, 2013, that made reference to the compliance with the Judgment. 3. The briefs filed by the representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) on June 28 and December 21, 2010, as well as on February 18, and August 8, 2013, wherein they made reported on the compliance with the Judgment. 4. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) had not presented its observations in regard to the compliance with Judgment at the time this Order was rendered. 5. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of December 22, 2010 and January 11, 2013, by which it indicated, pursuant to operative paragraph 15 of the Judgment of September 22, 2009, that the State was supposed to present a report on compliance by no later that October 21, 2010; as well as the note of June 11, 2013, which requested more information from the State. 6. The private hearing on the monitoring compliance with the judgment held on May 23, 2013, at the Court headquarters, wherein the Commission, State, and representatives were present, and the representatives presented various documents related to the case. CONSIDERING THAT: 2 In regard to a note published in the newspaper “Expreso,” on June 21, 2010, titled “NGO’s get Rich off of I/A Court of H.R’s rulings” [ONGs se enriquecen con fallos de Corte IDH"] (case file on monitoring of compliance, TI, f. 2 to 3), in regard to the “declarations attributed to the Ministry of Justice” in light of the monitoring of compliance with the judgment rendered by the Court on September 22, 2009, in the case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. 2