9 35. The Commission indicated that “it t[ook] note with satisfaction” of the information presented by the State regarding the development of activities to honor the commitments made, as well as the representatives’ observations that confirm the progress made to that end, “and that it [was] waiting for information on the effective and full implementation of all the aspects of the reparation.” 36. The information presented by the parties suggests that Colombia complied with the “best efforts” obligation to request the name change of the Courthouse of the Municipality of San Gil, in accordance with the name chosen by the next-of-kin. The Court highlights that the State took actions beyond the compliance with that obligation, given that although such change of name was not approved, it proposed a measure to safeguard the memory of the victims in a similar fashion by naming the small square of the Courthouse Mártires de la Justicia de la Rochela. According to the representatives’ statements, the Court assumes that the representatives are satisfied with this measure and that they are making the necessary arrangements to propose a date for ceremony, in which the square will be named, to the State and to coordinate “the structure of the ceremony and the victims' participation therein.” As a result, the Tribunal considers that the State has fully complied with this reparation measure and urges the parties to continue to make the necessary arrangements to finally implement the measure proposed by Colombia to name the small square of the Courthouse of San Gil Mártires de la Justicia de la Rochela. To publish a “summary of the key elements in the instant case” in a widely circulated national newspaper 37. As to the obligation to publish a “summary of the key elements in the instant case” in a full-page article in the printed edition of a widely circulated national newspaper (paragraph 277(II)(1) of the Judgment), the State reported that on October 18, 2008, the text on the Judgment of the Court was published in El Espectador newspaper. The State explained that it made a proposal regarding the text to the representatives in February 2008, but that it was not until September 18 of that same year that the State received a response on the matter. Colombia forwarded a copy of said publication to the Court and requested to declare this measure fulfilled. 38. The representatives confirmed the information provided by the State and that the published text was “a summary of the Court’s judgment that was previously agreed upon between the representatives and the State”; they also expressed that "[t]his method of compliance allowed the text to be more accessible for the public.” The representatives requested the Court to declare that the State complied with this reparation measure. 39. The Commission noted that the representatives confirmed the information presented by the State regarding this matter and they requested the Court to declare this measure fulfilled. 40. In view of the parties' request, and taking into account the alleged information, the Court considers that the State has satisfactorily complied with this reparation measure. The Court particularly values the outstanding effectiveness of this measure given the agreement reached between the parties on the text of the summary and the manner of its publication, which allows the publication of a text that can be more readily