5 representatives, as evidenced in the annexes to the report submitted by the State.5 Likewise, it confirms that the text of these communications complies with the content requirements indicated in paragraph 260 of the Judgment.6 It notes that compliance with the instant obligation also required informing the private institutions indicated by Mr. Lapo, but observed that in his communication to the Court (supra Having Seen 10) Mr. Lapo did not express inconformity with any of the measures adopted by the State in this regard until now. 11. The Court takes cognizance of the observations presented by Mr. Chaparro’s representatives; however, it notes that these statements lack supporting documentation. On the other hand, the Court calls to mind that the instant obligation consisted of “informing” the pertinent private institutions that they had to eliminate from their records all reference to Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo as authors or suspects of the criminal act of which they were accused in this case.7 Unlike the similar obligation in relation to public records, where it was ordered to “eliminate” any reference to criminal records for Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo, the State’s responsibility with regards to compliance with the instant obligation was limited to performing the corresponding communications, according to the parameters established by the Court in its Judgment. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State has fully complied with operative paragraph nine of the Judgment. * * * 12. Regarding the dissemination of the Judgment by radio and television (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment), the State reported that “it created two important products to comply with this obligation”: i) the national broadcast of public apology of December 10, 2009, mentioned in the previous Court Order on monitoring compliance with judgment in the instant case; and ii) the documentary “The Right to Memory,” of which it attached a copy,8 in which Mr. Juan Carlos Chaparro and his representatives participated. It indicated that the national broadcast was done at the primetime of television, 20:30, and it “could have been seen by a maximum of 1250000 people.” With regards to the documentary, it indicated that “it ha[d been] disseminated in three forums organized during the week of December 10 [2008] in Quito, Guayaquil, and Cuenca, and [in 2009 it had been] disseminated in the Zero Latitude Festival on July 12, 13, and 17, 2009, in the cities of Guayaquil, Quito, and Cuenca.” In addition, it reported that the documentary will be broadcast by “Ecuador TV.” It considered that this last broadcast complied with the obligation of dissemination by television, “while dissemination by radio remains pending.” 13. The representatives subsequently added that they ha[d] agreed with the State “to perform the dissemination of the [J]udgment by radio and television through a press conference convened and communicated with due anticipation, in which the victims’ representatives and a top level authority of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights would participate.” 14. With regards to himself, Mr. Lapo indicated that the State had complied with the “[d]issemination of the radio and television broadcast of the apology.” 5 Cf. Communication of March 16, 2009, by Mr. Chaparro Álvarez’s representative to the State, indicating the institutions to be notified by the State (file on monitoring compliance with judgment, Volume II, folio 441). 6 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 260. 7 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 6, para. 260. 8 Documentary “El Derecho a la Memoria” (The Right to Memory), (file on monitoring compliance with judgment, Volume II, folio 450).