6 representatives of the social organization, attended the aforementioned act. Likewise, they highlighted some of the most relevant parts of the speech made by the President of the Nation in this act. The representatives expressed their profound satisfaction with the attitude of the State by carrying out an act with the presence of the highest political authority of the country. Furthermore, they stated that the decision to perform the act at CELS was mutually agreed upon by the petitioners and high-ranking officials of the federal government, due to the resistance shown by members of the Church of San Patricio. 16. The Commission observed that Argentina had fulfilled this reparation measure. 17. The Court values highly the act performed on July 5, 2010, in the offices of CELS, in accordance with that provided for by the State as well as the representatives, and also takes note of the conformity expressed by the representatives with such act. Likewise, it observes with satisfaction that such act was presided over by the President of the Nation and that other high-ranking officials of the government were also present, as well as the next of kin of the victim, and that the planning of such act had the due participation, cooperation, and agreement of the latter (supra Considering Clause 15), pursuant to the Order of the Court of May 18, 2010.8 Furthermore, the Tribunal deems that the words of the President, according to that established by the representatives, achieved the purpose of the State acknowledging responsibility for the Human Rights violations committed against Mr. Eduardo Kimel, and, therefore, they contribute to dignify the memory of the victim. Furthermore, the Court deems it important to highlight the widespread coverage that such act received, through several means of communication,9 because this contributes to a greater preservation of the historical memory of the human rights violation carried out, promoting, at the same time, the non-repetition of facts such as those seen in the present case.10 Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal deems that the State has fully complied with operative paragraph ten of the Judgment. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercising its power of monitoring compliance with its decisions, pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of the Statute, and Articles 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedure,11 8 Cf. Caso Kimel v. Argentina. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 18, 2010, Considering Clause twenty eight. 9 In their brief of July 8, 2010, (supra Having Seen 4), the representatives included several electronic links to press notes published in Argentina, regarding the aforementioned act of acknowledgement of responsibility on behalf of the State. 10 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 20, 2009, Considering Clause eighteen. 11 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court during its LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions, celebrated between November 16 and 28, 2009.