7 requested the Court to consider this operative paragraph partially fulfilled (supra Having Seen Clause 3.) 20. That the Commission, in its comments submitted on January 8, 2008, valued the actions taken by the State, which it considered as a partial fulfillment and further stated that it hoped the State placed the commemorative plaque as ordered by the Court (supra Having Seen Clause 4.) 21. That based on the aforesaid, the Court considers that the State has partially complied with operative paragraph eleven (supra Having Seen Clause 1.) * * * 22. That as regards operative paragraph twelve, relating to the establishment of a training program for police officers and judicial personnel regarding the special protection to be afforded by the State to children and youngsters, as well as training regarding the respect for human rights and guaranties awarded to detainees and the separation of convicts from accused persons pending trial. In this respect, the State has not furnished any information whatsoever. 23. That the representatives pointed out the lack of information by the State regarding this operative paragraph and submitted a petition to the Court to request the State to submit detailed information regarding the measures adopted in order to comply with this obligation (supra Having Seen Clause 3.) 24. That the Commission, in its comments submitted on January 8, 2008, pointed out that the State “had to comply with its obligation of establishing a training program as ordered by the Court in its judgment, and also with its duty to provide information in that respect” (supra Having Seen Clause 4.) 25. That since there is not enough information, the Court considers it necessary that the State informs the Court about the measures that it has adopted in order to establish the training program as ordered in its Judgment (supra Having Seen Clause 1,) so that the state of fulfillment of operative paragraph twelve may be evaluated in due time. * * * 26. That as regards operative paragraph thirteen, related to the carrying out of a campaign to sensitize the Honduran society with regard to the importance of the protection of children and youngsters and inform it of the specific duties for their protection that correspond to the family, society, and the State, this latter has not provided any information at all. As regards the issuance of a postal stamp allusive to the protection due by the State and society to children and youngsters in risky situations, the State has informed that the said obligation to issue the postal stamp had been complied with (supra Having Seen Clause 2.) 27. That the representatives informed they knew that on November 22, 2007, the State had complied with the duty to issue a postal stamp as ordered in the Judgment, and consequently, they requested the Court to consider operative paragraph thirteen as partially fulfilled. However, they pointed out that the State had not made reference to any measures adopted to comply with the carrying out of a national campaign for