4 * * * 14. Regarding the obligation to publish the pertinent parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in another national newspaper with widespread circulation (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State advised that the judgment had been published in the official gazette on February 6, 2009, and, in the “Diario Panamá América” on February 28, 2009. The State forwarded copies of these publications. 15. In this regard, the representatives indicated that “[a]fter conducting a complete analysis of each of these publications,” it considered that the State “had complied fully with this measure.” 16. The Commission also considered that “this obligation had been duly complied with by the State.” 17. The President takes note of the measures taken by the State as regards the said publications, an aspect that will be assessed by the Court in plenary session in order to declare full compliance with this decision. * * * 18. With regard to the State’s obligation to carry out a public act acknowledging its international responsibility in relation to the violations declared in the judgment (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State indicated that “on February 6, 2009, it had held a solemn ceremony to acknowledge international responsibility for the violations declared in the judgment in the Nationality Hall of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice.” In addition, it indicated that “[t]he act was held in the presence of the next of kin of Heliodoro Portugal, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Attorney General, and the Vice President of the National Assembly,” and that “the declaration was made by the Minister of the Interior and Justice in the presence of prosecutors, Government officials and the public in general.” It added that “[t]he act was covered by all the written, radio and television media.” The Panamanian State attached a copy of the declaration read during the act and a copy of the Cabinet decision appointing the Minister of the Interior and Justice to make the said declaration. 19. The representatives argued that the said public act “had not been convened with sufficient notice,” because “Patria Portugal received the invitation […] only two days before it was held, which obliged her and her family to make last minute changes in their respective agendas so as to be able to attend it, including the transfer of some family member who do not live in the capital.” They indicated that the “haste with which the act was convened also meant that their representatives could not participate in it.” In addition, they affirmed that “the Portugal family did not participate in any way in the preparation of the act, and was never consulted about the details.” In this regard, the representatives indicated that “Patria Portugal asked to take the floor when the Minister of the Interior had finished reading the resolution containing the acknowledgment of responsibility, [and] was not allowed to intervene.” The representatives indicated that “the content of the act did not make redress to the victim’s next of kin” and that Patria Portugal had stated that, for her, it showed “disdain for [her] father, for [her] family and for Panamanian society,” because “[her] father did not die in an armed conflict as they tried to suggest.” They indicated that the authorities “[n]ever apologized” and that, consequently, “the speech made by the Minister of