6 criminal record related to the aforementioned domestic judgment. In this regard, the Court takes cognizance that, according to the information provided by the State, there is no criminal record related to the domestic proceeding which ended with this Court’s judgment. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that Panama complied with the obligation to annul the criminal conviction imposed on Mr. Tristán Donoso and all of the consequences stemming from it, established in operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment. * * * 20. Regarding the obligation to publish once specific paragraphs of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and another newspaper of nationwide circulation (operative paragraph fifteen of the Judgment), Panama reported that the publications ordered were made in the newspaper La Crítica of August 19, 2009, and in the Official Gazette of August 21, 2009, and submitted copies of both publications. 21. The representatives expressed that they reviewed the copies submitted and found several errors. In both “the numbers of the paragraphs in the publication do not correspond to the numbers of the paragraphs in the Judgment, which implies that the references in several sections –for example in the operative paragraphs- do not correspond to the numbering in the published text.” On the other hand “in both cases the titles of the sections which [the] Court ordered to be published were omitted.” Consequently, they requested the Court to take these observations into account when assessing compliance with this reparation. 22. The Commission considered that “[b]ased on the information available […] the State has complied with this point of the [J]udgment.” 23. The Court observes that the State made the publications ordered in the Judgment on August 19 and 21, 2009. With regards to the representatives’ observations, the Court observes that the paragraphs ordered were indeed published, although with a different numbering, and that the titles of some of the sections were not included, as was indicated in the Judgment. Without detriment to the above, the Court considers that the errors in the publication do not affect the goal or compliance with this reparation. The Court takes into consideration, in addition, that the representatives did not consider that these errors entailed noncompliance with the reparation ordered, but limited themselves to expressing that the Court should take those aspects into consideration. Therefore, based on the information submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the State complied with the obligation to publish the Judgment established in operative paragraph fifteen thereof. * * * 24. The Inter-American Court values that the State has fully complied with the reparation measures ordered by the Judgment in the instant case. Specifically, the Court recognizes the efforts by the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama to implement the adequate proceeding, in conformity with its domestic legislation, to