6 the obligation to publish in another national newspaper, the State indicated that it was coordinating with the Special Commission to follow up on and Monitor International Proceedings, in order to comply with the measures ordered in the judgment on reparations. 14. That the representatives also indicated that the State had published the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000, in the Official Gazette El Peruano on November 14, 2002. 15. That the Commission indicated that the State had submitted copies of the publication of the judgment on merits and the judgment on reparations in the Official Gazette on November 14, 2002; and that, despite the delay, it considered that the State had complied. Nevertheless, it observed that the State had not mentioned the measures adopted to comply with the obligation to publish the contents of the judgment on merits in other media. 16. That, based on the information provided by the parties, the Court finds that the State has complied partially with subparagraph (a) of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered in the instant case, by publishing the judgment on merits of August 16, 2000, in the Official Gazette El Peruano (supra first having seen paragraph). In addition, it assesses positively the publication of the judgment on reparations in the same Official Gazette. However, the judgment on merits has not yet been published in another national newspaper, as the State itself has admitted, indicating that it was taking steps to make this publication. In this regard, the Court considers that it requires a report on the progress made in relation to the publication that remains pending, in order to assess the status of compliance with subparagraph (a) of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment. * * * 17. That, regarding subparagraph (b) of the fourth operative paragraph (supra first having seen paragraph), the State advised that it had published “a public apology to the victims for the grievous damage caused” in the Executive Decree published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on November 22, 2002. 18. That, in this regard, the representatives indicated that the State had not issued an executive decree with a public apology to the victims in this case. 19. That the Commission indicated that the State had published the said agreement in the Official Gazette El Peruano on November 22, 2002, by means of Executive Decree No. 259-2002-JUS; and therefore “the State has complied with its undertaking to make a public apology to the victims and to confirm its resolve that events of this nature will never recur.” 20. That, based on the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that on November 22, 2002, Peru published Executive Decree No. 259-2002-JUS, in the Official Gazette El Peruano indicating that the State “publicly apologizes to the victims for the grievous damage caused, and [confirms] its firm resolve to avoid a recurrence of this type of event in the country […].” Based on the above, the Court finds that the State has complied with the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered in this case (supra first having seen paragraph).