in the national courts. Finally, it stated that the Judiciary has taken steps to limit access to judicial records via search engines hosted on its website using only the person’s RUT number and name.186 163. The Court has confirmed that, according to the evidence, Mr. Baraona’s background certificate does not show a criminal record. Nevertheless, the guide provided by the parties has made it possible to access the case search registry in the Virtual Judicial Office via the Judicial Branch portal, and to access the records of the criminal proceeding in which Mr. Baraona was convicted. Consequently, the representatives and the victim have requested that the records of the criminal proceedings be expunged. However, during the public hearing, Mr. Baraona stated that one solution would be to maintain the case history, but with a record of the ruling issued in the judgment of the Inter-American Court.187 164. In view of the foregoing and considering that in the instant case the Court determined, among the rights violated, the violation of freedom of expression to the detriment of the victim, the Court considers that the State must adopt, within six months from notification of this judgment, the measures necessary to ensure that an annotation appears in the judicial file of the case and the sentence handed down against Mr. Baraona, indicating that the criminal case and the sentence imposed was the subject of an analysis in a judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in which it declared the international responsibility of the State of Chile. If necessary, the State must attach this annotation in the files of any other public entity in which the aforementioned case and conviction appear. C. Measures of satisfaction 165. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures of satisfaction. In particular, it requested that Report No. 52/19 be disseminated in the Chilean Judiciary, without referring to this point in its final written observations. 166. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to ensure the effective dissemination, within the Judiciary, of the Commission’s Merits Report No. 52/19 and of the Court’s judgment in this case. In their final written arguments they noted that, as regards the dissemination of said report, this measure has not been fully complied with, since it has had no effect in the place where Mr. Baraona lives and practices his profession and his defense. 167. The State stressed that it has fully complied with the dissemination of Report No. 52/19, since the Judiciary has published the Commission’s report on this case by various means, both on its internal system (intranet) and via its website and all official digital media and social networks. 168. In relation to the dissemination of the Commission’s Report No. 52/19, the Court confirms that the State disseminated it via the different media of the Judiciary, including its internal system and its website. This information was not disputed by the Commission or by the representatives, although the latter claimed that it had not been disseminated in Mr. Due to the entry into force of Law No. 20.285 on Access to Public Information, the Plenary of the Supreme Court issued Order No. 72-2009, which states that “In no case will it be permitted to carry out a search by RUT or by name.” 187 Mr. Baraona stated the following: “Perhaps the solution would be to keep the case history so that anyone who looks back can say that I was convicted for insulting a senator of the Republic, but then the Chilean State can clearly say that in compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court, we were wrong about Mr. Baraona, he exercised his legitimate right and therefore that record remains, because that would allow me to say that I was unfairly convicted. It’s not enough for me that they erase all that - I prefer that they keep it because that's how I recover the activist in me, then I could answer your question, I could stand up calmly and resume my environmental litigation activities.” Statement of Carlos Baraona Bray rendered before the Court, supra. 186 48