76 241. In this regard, the State indicated that the Inter-Institutional Council for the Clarification of Forced Disappearances (hereinafter “CIEDEF”) “is concluding the second phase” of the project entitled “Contribution to the Full Exercise of Human Rights and Enhancement of Democracy: Clarification of the cases of forced disappearances during the period 1964-1982.” According to the State, one of the objectives of this project “in 2010 is to seek the remains of José Luis Ibsen Peña”; nevertheless “in its 2010 Annual Plan of Operations, besides the project to clarify forced disappearances, CIEDEF has proposed […] a short-term plan to search and identify the remains of the victims whose cases are being examined by international organizations,” among them, that of José Luis Ibsen Peña. Therefore, the State asked that the Court “to assess positively the State’s intention to find the remains [of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña].” 242. On this point, the Court assesses positively that the State has decided to accord priority to the search for Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña. In this regard, it is necessary that the State conducts a reliable search, in which it displays its best efforts to clarify his whereabouts as soon as possible. The Court emphasizes that Mr. Ibsen Peña disappeared almost 37 years ago, so that it is a fair expectation of his next of kin that the State undertake effective measures to discover his whereabouts. If it is the case that the measures carried out by the State establish that Mr. Peña has passed away, his remains, previously identified, must be delivered to his family as soon as possible and without any cost. Also, the State must cover the costs of the funeral, if applicable, as agreed with the next of kin.268 C.2 Publication of the pertinent parts of this judgment and public dissemination 243. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order the publication of the judgment in a national circulation media. Likewise, the representatives requested the Court to order the State to “publish and disseminate” this judgment “in different media.” For its part, the State “indicate[d] that [it] will publicize the judgment delivered by [this] Court in a newspaper with national circulation.” 244. The Court assesses positively the State’s offer regarding this form of reparation. However, as it has ordered on other occasions,269 the Court considers that the State must publish, once, in the Official Gazette paragraphs 1 to 5, 23 to 29, 33, 34, 36 to 38, 50 to 57, 67, 68, 71 to 75, 80 to 82, 84 to 92, 94, 102 to 111, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 126, 128 to 133, 155 to 163, 165 to 174, 177, 178, 180 to 184, 189 to 191, 193 to 195, 197 to 202, 205 to 212, 214 to 226, 231 and 232; all of them including the titles of each chapter and the respective section, without the footnotes, together with the operative paragraphs of this judgment. Also, it must publish in another newspaper with widespread national circulation, the official summary of the judgment issued by this Court.270 In addition, as the Court has ordered on previous occasions,271 this judgment must be published in its entirety 268 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 185, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 241. 269 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, Operative Paragraph 5 d); Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 244, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 220. 270 271 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech, supra note 6, para. 244. Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 195; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 244, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 220.