-8- (b) Regarding the creation of a search web page, “its construction has not yet been concluded. Owing to lack of publicity and links with State agencies and national and international non-governmental organizations, […] the web page is difficult to access […]; furthermore, it has not been linked to Internet search engines.” In addition, “the web page does not include all the information available on Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, as established in the judgment; nor does it include any information on the children’s family.” They were “unaware whether the necessary coordination has been put in place to facilitate the establishment and development of a search network as mentioned in the judgment”; (c) Regarding the creation of a genetic information system, “in its report, State does not mention any specific measure taken to comply with measure.” “[T]he existence of a cooperation agreement between Supreme Court of Justice and the judicial body does not in itself imply progress towards the establishment of a genetic information system”; the this the any (d) Regarding the publication, at least once, in the official gazette and in another national newspaper, of Chapters I, III and VI, as well as the operative paragraphs of the judgment, it agreed with the State’s report on the date and the newspapers in which these were published, but mentioned that “the publications included chapters I, IV, V, VI and VII of the judgment on preliminary objections, as well as the dissenting opinions of Judge ad hoc Alejandro Montiel Argüello; consequently the Ombudsman’s Office considered that an attempt was being made to question the Court’s ruling.” Since “the publication appeared in the newspaper El Mundo and not in a newspaper with higher circulation, […] this notably reduced the judgment’s social impact”; (e) Regarding the obligation to designate a day dedicated to the children who disappeared during the internal armed conflict for different reasons, “the day was designated ‘of Family Reunification’ of children who were lost during the armed conflict for different reasons. This attempts to disregard the existence of the phenomenon of the enforced disappearance of children, eliminating the significance of the date.” On March 22, 2006, Pro-Búsqueda submitted a draft law to the Legislative Assembly to annul the day of “Family Reunification” and to declare June 2 each year as the “Day of the children who disappeared during the internal armed conflict”; (f) Regarding the obligation to provide, free of charge, through its specialized health institutions, the medical and psychological treatment required by the next of kin of the victims, “the initial medical appointments in the Maternity and Rosales Hospitals were scheduled during the first week of October 2005 […. A] representative of the State and a representative of the Asociación ProBúsqueda accompanied them to ensure the effectiveness of the medical care. The expenses for transportation and meals for the Serrano Cruz family arising from the medical care have been paid by the State.” However, “no prior medical evaluations were scheduled […,] the initial medical appointments were not previously coordinated with the administrative personnel of the health centers […, and] the result of the evaluations was not officially presented […. T]he lack of coordination and the general shortcomings of the national health system make it essential for the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda to intervene permanently to arrange appointments, administrative procedures