September 26, 2010, “the day of the week with the highest circulation.” Also, the first page of the newspaper included a note stating: “Today’s edition includes an insert with excerpts from the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia.” The State attached a copy of this publication. 22. The representatives stated that the State had “made a proposal to reduce the content of the publication” ordered by the Court. It indicated that they were not obliged to accept this proposal because it lessened the obligations imposed on the State. According to the representatives, the Colombian State “made a publication in the El Espectador newspaper on Sunday, September 26, [2010.] They were “informed by a communication sent by fax on Friday, 24 [September 2010] at 5.40 p.m., a time at which, usually, it is virtually impossible to find any official available in an emergency in the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, which was unfair to the victims and their representatives.” Consequently, they indicated that the family of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, the other victims acknowledged in the judgment, the representatives and the human rights community did not find out about the said publication in a timely manner. In short, the representatives stated that, “strictly speaking, the State has complied with the obligation, but they deeply regret that the State's way of fulfilling the obligations was through the violation and re-victimization of the people to whom it was supposed to be making reparation.” 23. The Commission considered that the State had complied with this aspect of the judgment by making the publication in the Official Gazette and in a national newspaper. However, it noted the concern expressed by the representatives and recalled the spirit of this measure of reparation as regards the need for the publications to have effects for society as a whole as well as for the victims. 24. The Court notes that the State has provided documentation showing that publications were made in the Official Gazette on July 29, 2009, and in the insert in El Espectador, the newspaper with widespread circulation, on September 26, 2010. In this respect, the Court considers that the publications made by the Colombian State satisfy the obligation imposed by the Court and, therefore, declares that the State has complied fully with this reparation measure. d) Regarding the obligation to organize a public act acknowledging its international responsibility in relation to the violations declared in the case at the University of Antioquia (sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 25. The State indicated that the representatives had requested the proposed program for the act and that this was sent on August 19, 2010. In this regard, the State advised that it was taking the necessary steps to decide which senior State official would preside the public act and the possible dates on which it could be held. In addition, the State reiterated its absolute willingness to comply with this reparation measure, stating that “it is aware of its significance for the victims,” and would therefore arrange a meeting to reach agreement on the details of each proposal and to ensure that the act was organized as soon as possible. Finally, the State reiterated its “willingness [...] to coordinate” with officials with decision-making authority and to continue discussions in order to hold the act as soon as possible. 26. The representatives stated that, together with the family of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, they had “decided that a public act held within the University of Antioquia must include the active and positive participation of all levels of the university.” They 9