10 25. That, based on the foregoing, the Court considers it is appropriate to request the representatives and the Commission to refer to such argument. * * * 26. That regarding the duty of the State to adopt, within a reasonable time, the educational, work-related and other measures necessary to ensure the social readaptation of Mr. Raxcacó Reyes when he has served the sentence imposed (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), the State pointed out that the victim "participates in the creation of craftsmanship and works as a gardener in front of the Director’s Office of Granja Pavón. Besides, he is attending an adult educational program of CONALFA [Literacy National Committee] and he is in the second stage of the post-literacy program that comprises the forth, fifth and sixth grade of primary school and English lectures”. 27. That the representatives pointed out that the State has not provided a formal working environment for the readaptation processes. 28. That the Commission did not submit any observations in that regard. 29. That the Tribunal considers that the State must clarify how much Mr. Raxcacó Reyes earns for the gardener position, in what way such job is useful for the readaptation of the victim, whether the education he receives is provided on application to the State or at the request of the inmates, of the victim himself or of a non-governmental organization and how the State supports Mr. Raxcacó Reyes in the creation of craftsmanship. * * * 30. That as to the duty to publish the Judgment (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment) the State informed that on September 22, 2006, the pertinent parts of the Judgment were published in Diario de Centroamérica and on March 28, 2008 in the national newspaper "El Periódico". 31. That the representatives did not make reference to this issue in the private hearing held in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause 8) but previously, they pointed out that “the publications made by the State do not satisfy the requirements established [in] the [J]udgment" since "even though the paragraphs set forth in the [J]udgment are literally published, there is no reference to the number of such paragraphs, nor to the chapters to which they correspond." 32. That the Commission neither referred to this measure of reparation in the private hearing but it previously noted “with satisfaction the material compliance with what was ordered by the Court”. 33. That it spring from the case file before this Tribunal, that, in fact, the publications of the Judgment do not include the number of the paragraphs thereof nor the chapters to which they correspond. Nevertheless, the full text of the paragraphs is published. Furthermore, the Court notes that the representatives did not submit any justification proving that the lack of numbers of the paragraphs and chapters affects, in any way, the purpose of the reparation. As a consequence, the Court deems that the State has fully complied with this part of the Judgment. * * *