4 pointed out that this obligation “has the goal of letting people know about the Judgment, and [that] for the indigenous peoples it is particularly important”, given that the Court was very “emphatic in pointing out the different languages in which it had to be translated, and in pointing out even the frequency of broadcast that the Judgment [should] have.” Regarding the broadcast apparently carried out by the State, they mentioned that such reparation measure was never consulted with the representatives, and that they “never kn[ew] when the broadcast was made, [that] nobody has commented [to them] […] that they heard it, [and that they do not know] the text of what was translated,” therefore they cannot “control if that translated and that supposedly said corresponds to that the Court ordered.” The representatives mentioned that they respected that pointed out by the State and that they did not distrust of the submission of the invoices, but that they considered that the object was to prove that the measure of reparation had met its purpose, which, in their concept, had not happened due to the form in which the State carried it out. Therefore, they requested this point to be declared not complied with, and the broadcast of the Judgment to be newly ordered in coordination with the representatives and the victims. 9. The Inter-American Commission (supra Having Seen 8) pointed out that it shall be reminded that the Judgment of the Court establishes a term of one year to comply with this obligation, but, that for four years, the State has reiterated that it has already complied with this point, without presenting information which, besides the invoices, allows to infer such compliance according to that ordered by the Court, which was very specific. In that sense, it pointed out that it could not conclude that this aspect of the Judgment have been complied with. 10. The State has accepted that the invoices or receipts are not enough to prove the broadcasts of the Judgment in the Spanish, Miskito, Sumo and English languages that have apparently being performed. Such invoices are in the file of the Tribunal, however, other elements additional to such evidence. In this sense, the State expressed its will to comply with this point and to perform the broadcasts again. The Court accepts this offering while it considers that there is an uncertainty regarding to that apparently made public through the radio broadcasts pointed out by the State. Therefore, the Tribunal requests Nicaragua, once such broadcasts are performed again, to submit to the Court a copy of the corresponding audio and to indicate precisely the date, time, intervals, and radio stations through which the respective broadcasts were made. Likewise, the Tribunal remains waiting on the information, on the part of the State, regarding the broadcast of the Judgment in Rama language, which, it expressed, has not been yet carried out. 11. In the other hand, the Tribunal observes that the request of the representatives, for the broadcasts of the Judgment to be performed in coordination with them and the victims arises from the information that has been submitted by both, them and the State, throughout the procedure of supervision of compliance with the Judgment, in the sense that a Mixed Compliance Commission has been formed. This Commission is integrated by representatives of YATAMA, of the CENIDH, and of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua “with the purpose of carrying out a coordinated, harmonic, participative and transparent process of compliance of the Judgment.”5 The Tribunal urges the State to comply with the corresponding commitments made to this point, that have been voluntarily 5 According to the representatives, that Commission came up in a meeting held on August 8, 2005. Cf. Brief of the representatives of September 21, 2006 (File of Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment, volume I, folio 322); likewise, the report of the State of Nicaragua of August 23, 2006 (File of Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment, volume I, folio 301).