8 at first there appears a curtain to divide one case from the other on which, in a typescript imitating that of a typewriter, the words “Caso Zambrano-Vélez” [“The Case of Zambrano-Vélez] gradually appear; then, Mrs. Johana Zambrano is introduced in an interview wherein she tells how the public apologies will “clear” the name of her father an her uncles; finally, in the same television unit, the Minister speaks out in the following terms: “the national government, in compliance with international obligations and on the basis of its democratic and humanistic convictions, presents its public apologies in the name of the State of Ecuador […] 3. In memory of Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and José Miguel Caicedo, victims of the extrajudicial execution by the armed forces, we present the apologies of the State of Ecuador to their next of kin.” 26. That the Court considers the expressions of the abovementioned high-ranking official, effected on behalf of the State, even among other human rights violations acknowledged in the same act, allowed the audience to individualize fully, both from a verbal and a graphic standpoint, the facts, the persons and the authorities related to the case. This is so because not only did the aforementioned Minister appear, but also press images relating to the declaration of responsibility by the State of Ecuador in the instant case, with the addition of a testimony by one of the victims, emphasizing the intent of the reparation measure, and even of a public apology. There is certainly no record of the next of kin having been consulted individually as to whether they wished to take part in the abovementioned act. 27. That the Court considers that the aforementioned act of acknowledgment satisfies three of the standards hereinabove set forth (supra Considering Clause Number Twenty-Three), to wit: a) it was broadcasted on the national chain, thereby acquiring the nature of a public acknowledgment and a greater importance, given the scope of the targeted audience, particularly because it could have been seen by a large audience, on account of the time it was shown; b) even though it did not take place within the six month time limit set for such purpose, the delay was not so great as to turn the act ineffective, and c) it was done on behalf of the State by a senior State official, such as the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. In terms hereinabove stated, the Court considers the act to appropriately serve the purpose and the object of the reparation provided, inasmuch as it was conducted by a senior State authority, as a wide dissemination was targeted by broadcasting it on a national television chain and as express reference was made to the victims in the instant case. Consequently, the State has complied fully with operative paragraph number seven in the Judgment. * * * Publication of the pertinent parts of the Judgment within six months 28. That as relates to the obligation to publish in the Diario Oficial [Official Gazette] and in another newspaper of wide national coverage, for only one time, paragraphs 8 to 130 of the Judgment and the operative part thereof (operative paragraph number eight in the Judgment), the State communicated that on September 19, 2007 the respective publication was effected in the Registro Oficial [Official Register] Nº 173 and on November 26, 2007 in the “El Telégrafo” newspaper, and supplied the documents sustaining such statement.