held a public act to apologize; (ii) it had restored the monument where the mass grave had been located, and (iii) a plaque had been placed commemorating the events of the massacre. Regarding the construction of a monument to commemorate the massacre in Los Josefinos, it stressed that, in its Merits Report, the Commission itself had acknowledged that the State had complied with the construction of this monument; therefore, this measure of reparation was unnecessary. 161. The Court finds, as it has in other cases,237 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, in an appropriate and legible font; (b) the official summary prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation in an appropriate and legible font, and (c) this judgment, in its entirety, available for one year on an official website of the State in a way that is accessible to the public from the website’s home page. The State must inform the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year time frame for presenting its first report established in the eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment. 162. Regarding the construction of the monument, the Court notes that, despite the State’s assertion that it had restored a monument in agreement with the victims, the representatives have noted that the said monument was never completed. This was confirmed by Francisco Batres who, during the hearing before this Court, indicated that “the State had not complied with the monument; it should have been completed in 2008, but it was not.”238 Consequently, the Court orders the State to continue the construction of the said monument in the place where the clandestine grave was located, and also install a plaque commemorating the events that occurred on April 29 and 30, 1982. This monument must be completed within one year of notification of this judgment. 163. Additionally, and based on the opinion of expert witness Worby during the hearing before this Court,239 the Court establishes, as it has in other cases, 240 that an audiovisual documentary be made on the massacre of April 28 and 29, 1982, in the village of Los Josefinos, and the impact that this has had on the community up until today. The victims must be allowed to participate fully at all stages of the production of the documentary. The State must assume all the expenses arising from the production and distribution of this video. The Court considers that the video must be distributed as widely as possible to the victims, to their representatives, and to military training centers. The video must also be transmitted, at least once, on a national television channel and at a peak viewing hour, and should be uploaded to the website of the Guatemalan Army. The State has one year from notification of this judgment to prepare this audiovisual documentary and distribute it. Furthermore, the State must present a report to the Court on the progress made in complying with this measure of reparation within six months of notification of this judgment. Within four months of notification of this judgment, the State must designate a point person to coordinate with the victims or their representatives in order to comply with this measure. Cf. Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 226, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 273. 237 Cf. Statement of Francisco Batres Álvarez at the public hearing held on February 17 and 18, 2021, during the 139th regular session. 238 In answer to a question asked by the President, Elizabeth Odio Benito, regarding whether she had any specific recommendation to make concerning “measures of remembrance so as not to forget,” the expert witness indicated that, in order to make reparation to the community it was appropriate to prepare “a documentary or a book with interviews” in order, in some way, “to document and socialize the events, and to discuss things from time to time so as to commemorate significant dates, their own history,” because this was part of the “healing process” for the events that had occurred. Cf. Expert opinion provided to the Court by Paula Worby during the public hearing held in this case. 239 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paras. 228 to 230; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 365, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, para. 265. 240 47