presented by the State and the representative, in December 2011, the State would present a report on what happened to Mr. Vera Vera as ordered in the judgment. However, to date, the Court has no knowledge of this report, or whether it has been prepared yet. Therefore, the Court awaits the relevant information from the State. B) Obligation to publish certain paragraphs of the judgment in the Official Gazette, to publish the official summary thereof in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and to publish the entire judgment on an appropriate web site; also the obligation to disseminate the judgment among police and prison authorities, and medical personnel in charge of persons deprived of liberty (third operative paragraph of the judgment) 9. The State advised that “in meetings held with the beneficiary and her representative, consensus was reached that what the Inter-American Court referred to as the ‘Official Gazette’ was equivalent to [the] Registro Oficial in Ecuador.” In this regard, the Compliance Agreement stipulated that the paragraphs of the judgment indicated by the Court would be published in September 2011. Accordingly, on September 8, 2011, the extract of the judgment was published in Registro Oficial No. 530 as ordered by [the Court].” The State forwarded a copy of this publication. Moreover, it advised that Mrs. Vera Valdez had requested that the publication of the official summary of the judgment be made in the newspaper with the highest national circulation, namely the “Extra,” on September 5, 2011, as indicated in the Compliance Agreement. The State forwarded a copy of this publication to the Court. In addition, with regard to the publication of the entire judgment on an appropriate official web site, the State indicated that it is available at: http://www.minjusticia.gob.ec/. Lastly, regarding the dissemination of the judgment among different authorities, Ecuador advised that, in the Compliance Agreement, it had undertaken to disseminate the judgment among prison personnel and medical personnel in charge of persons deprived of liberty in December 2011. The State also undertook to disseminate the content of the judgment and its official summary among the police authorities “on the bulletin boards of police establishments.” The State forwarded a compact disk with photographs of the places where the judgment and its official summary had been placed in order to disseminate them among “police authorities and other members of the National Police.” 10. The representatives confirmed that the publications ordered by the Court had been made as indicated by the State (supra considering paragraph 9). Regarding the obligation to disseminate the judgment among police and prison authorities, and medical personnel in charge of persons deprived of liberty, the representative indicated that “the Compliance Agreement [stipulated] that [the State] would proceed with this dissemination in December [2011]”; consequently, he hoped that this would be done as of that date. 11. The Commission stated that the information available indicated that the State had made the publications ordered. However, regarding the dissemination of the judgment, it indicated that the documentation provided by the State revealed that “it was disseminated mainly in police establishments and only in one hospital in Quito”; therefore, it was waiting for Ecuador to continue disseminating the judgment “with the scope established therein; that is, among prison personnel and medical personnel in charge of persons deprived of liberty in the different detention centers.” 12. From the information and documents provided to the Court by the parties, it can be observed that the State has complied with the obligations to publish the judgment in the Official Gazette, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and on an appropriate 3