15 office of human rights was created within the Army in order to ensure that this policy is internalized and it also mentioned that a cooperation agreement was entered into with the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights to oversight the progress in this respect. The State delivered, during said hearing, an exhaustive report on these programs and requested the Court to declare the compliance with this measure of reparation. 49. That even though the information described in the foregoing considering clause was not submitted during the procedure to monitor compliance with the instant Judgment, the Court notes that the obligation ordered in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre is identical to the one ordered in the case of the Ituango Massacres, since in both judgment, the State was ordered to “implement, within a reasonable time, permanent training programs on human rights and international humanitarian law for the Colombian Armed Forces”. Therefore, based on the principle of procedural economy, the Tribunal considers useful to admit such information into the body of evidence, taking into account that the Commission as well as some of the representatives have had the opportunity to present observations in that respect in the proceedings in which such information was forwarded by the State. Besides, the Tribunal notes that the compliance with this measure of reparation does not only correspond to an individual obligation towards the victims of the case at hand, but it also consist in actions and measures that the State must implement at the institutional level, in order to prevent that similar facts may happen again in the future. 50. That in the Order issued by this Tribunal on July 6, 2009 on the compliance with the Judgment in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre, the Court determined that the human rights education within the Armed Forces is essential to provide guarantees of nonrepetition of facts such as the ones that occurred in that case and in the instant case. Therefore, the Court positively valued the progress mentioned by the State at the hearing held in said case and considered that the State complied with this measure of reparation, as to the design and implementation of the human rights and international humanitarian law training programs, considering that those are permanent programs. As a consequence, taking into account that it is the same measure of reparation that is being analyzed and based on the reasons above mentioned, the Tribunal considers that the State has complied with the terms of operative paragraph 21 of the Judgment. * * * 51. That as to the obligation to publish once, in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with national circulation, the chapter on the proven facts in this judgment and the operative paragraphs of the Judgment, the State pointed out that, in accordance with what was agreed on in the meeting held on June 18, 2008 with the representatives, the pertinent parts of the Judgment were published on October [sic] 13, 2008. This publication was made on a Sunday to guarantee the massive dissemination in the newspaper with national circulation called “El Espectador” and had the following characteristics: (a) additional offspring to the newspaper; (b) images provided for by the next-of-kin; (c) layout to make it more appealing to the reader and (d) font Arial, size 12. In addition, the State contested the information forwarded by the victims’ representatives in their observations to the first report on compliance. In this sense, it indicated that “[…] it never limited the number of pages in which the publication should be made. [On the contrary, the publication] was made taking into account the claims of the representatives and with their total consent". 52. That in this regard, the representatives considered, in the observations forwarded on July 4, 2008, that is to say, after the meeting convened by the State but before the alleged