has noted that it is not apparent that the State has taken the necessary measures to comply with these measures of reparation. 59. The Inter-American Commission held in the private hearing of August 2013 that the measures of reparation “have not been completed at all although they are measures that do not require higher than usual efforts to be undertaken.” The Commission noted that some progress regarding compliance “can contribute very positively to the dissemination of information regarding what actually happened in this case and to change or at least reduce the structural difficulties impeding progress in regard to its implementation.” In its brief of October 9, 2013, regarding the publication of the Judgment and the public acknowledgment of responsibility, the Inter-American Commission noted with concern that the deadlines for compliance with these measures of reparation have expired long ago and therefore request[ed] that the Court [...]require the State [...] to comply immediately.” F.3) Considerations of the Court 60. The Court emphasizes that for the fulfillment of the measure ordered in this case the State was given a period of six months and one year (supra Considering clause 55). In that regard, the Court notes that more than seven years have passed since the notification of the judgment on the merits without the State complying with these measures, which is an unjustified and excessive delay. As for the assertion by the State regarding the publication of the Judgment, in the sense that it “is taking the necessary steps in order to comply” (supra Considering clause 56), the Court found that along with its report of October 6, 2010, Peru provided a copy of a communication dated May 17, 2010 from the Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice addressed to the Director General of the Office of Administration of the Ministry requesting cooperation for the realization of publications and broadcasts on seven Judgments of the Court, including this case. Peru has not explained the reasons why nearly four years have passed and there has not been compliance with publications in this case. 61. The Court agrees with the Inter-American Commission (supra Considering clause 59) as to the importance of promptly complying with those measures of satisfaction, keeping in mind the specifications under which they were ordered. The public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility and the publication and dissemination of relevant parts of the Judgment are intended to provide redress for the victims and their families for the serious violations and damages caused by the State in this case. In turn, they constitute measures which, through publication and their broad scope, permit avoidance of the repetition of violations of human rights such as those in this case, revealing the violations to State authorities and members of society. The Court recalls that in 2006, in the proceedings before this Court, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the events that occurred May 6 to 9, 1992 in the Miguel Castro Castro 58 (supra Having Seen clause 1). In its Judgment, the Court found that the official version held by Peruvian authorities at the time of the events regarding what happened was different from that given by the Tribunal in the Judgment, particularly in regard to the legitimate use of force against both male and female inmates. 59 The Court also found that the victims in this case were referred to by the press and in official statements issued by the Ministry of the Interior of Peru as “terrorists,” “Shining Path terrorists,” “criminal terrorists” and “inmates for 58 59 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 135 to 148. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 197.16. 26