71 scope or repercussion263. C.1) Satisfaction a) Publication of the judgment 256. As it has ordered on repeated occasions,264 the Court deems that as a measure of satisfaction the State must publish, only once, in the Gazette and in another newspaper of national circulation, chapters I, VIII; IX and X; and paragraphs 222 of Chapter XI, and paragraphs 225, 229 to 236, 238 to 242, 244 to 249, 251 to 254, 256, 259 to 264, 265, 268 to 270, 271 to 274 and 283 to 291 of Chapter XII, of this Judgment, including the names of each chapter and the corresponding section –without the corresponding footnotes- as well as the operative paragraphs. Additionally, as the Court has previously ruled,265 this judgment must be published in full, at least for one year, in an official website created by the State, taking into consideration the characteristics ordered for the publication. A term of six and two months as of the date of notification of this Judgment is given for the publications in the newspapers and on the Internet to be performed, respectively, from the date of notification of this Judgment. b) Public recognition of international responsibility and diffusion of the documentary video of the facts of the Massacre of the Las Dos Erres Community. 257. The representatives requested the State to hold an act to public recognize its international responsibility for the denial of justice, in which “high representatives of the Judicial Branch” must participate. Additionally, they requested coordination of the act with the representatives to define aspects of how it will be performed. Regarding the video which the State made on the facts occurred in the Las Dos Erres community, the representatives claimed that the victims were not informed of the dates on which the video would be shown, therefore they are not aware its content. The Commission did not comment on this. 258. On the other hand, the State indicated that it had already publicly recognized its international responsibility for the facts occurred in the Las Dos Erres community on several occasions. Additionally, it indicated that it performed a symbolic act of delivery of reparations to the victims, in which high-level employees of the State of Guatemala participated. Regarding the video, the State indicated that it was already created and broadcasted by the channel Guatevisión on December 17 and 21, 2007. 259. It is worth noting that expert witness Nieves Gómez Dupuis, in the expert opinion given before a notary public, expressed that the case reveals that “[t]he lack of justice and absence of diffusion of the story has caused that, since no individuals have been declared guilty of the facts, the blame is reverted on the victims, and they are stigmatized.”266 She added that at “[a] collective and social level, the existence of 263 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Garibaldi v. Brasil, supra note 23, para. 153, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 99. 264 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 235; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 194, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 157. 265 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra note 36, para. 195; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 230, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 157. 266 Expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis rendered on June 8, 2009 before a notary public (affidavit) (file on preliminary objections, merits and possible reparations, Volume IV, f. 633) and expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis of August 2005, supra note 148, f. 2811.