16 54. That the term established to acknowledge the liability publicly was six months as from the date of service of the Judgment and, therefore, such term elapsed over two years and nine months ago. The State has not provided any information about any proceedings carried out for the effective compliance with this obligation. To that end, the Court reiterates that the States Parties to the Convention that have acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court must fully abide by the obligations established by the Court within the term set out to that end, so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective. 55. That in the Judgment in this case the Court valued the acknowledgment of liability made by Venezuela in the public hearing held on April 4, 2006 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Within that framework, the State asked for public forgiveness to the victims’ next of kin in this case and requested the Court for a minute of silence in their memory. However, according to paragraph 150 of the Judgment, this Court ordered that the State had to publicly acknowledge its international liability and ask for forgiveness to the victims and their next of kin for the events that violated human rights established in the Judgment in Venezuela, since not all of them were present in such hearing, considering that a public acknowledgement and forgiveness is a guarantee of non repetition and must be known by the Venezuelan society, taking into account the nature of the facts. To that end, the Court observes that the lack of compliance with this part of the Judgment is contrary to the proceedings by the State during the public hearing about this case held in Argentina. 56. That the State did not establish a tentative date for compliance with this obligation neither at the private hearing held recently about this case (supra Having Seen clause 7) nor in the schedule submitted by the State (supra Having Seen clause 8), nor did it refer to any activities planned or pending planning for such compliance. 57. That consequently, the State must, within the term of four months as from the date of service of this Resolution, fully comply with this obligation. To that end, the State shall coordinate with the victims’ representatives and agree on an appropriate date to hold that act, in order to ensure the presence of the victims’ next of kin. * * * 58. That as to the duty to publish at least once the chapter on the facts established in this Judgment, without its footnotes, as well as the operative paragraphs therein (operative paragraph 13 of the Judgment) within the term of six months as from the date of service of this Judgment, in the Official Gazette and in another national daily newspaper, the State indicated that compliance with same “has been set for the first quarter of 2010.” 59. That the representatives find it is “inconceivable” that this “minimum right of the next of kin” to see the Judgment published has not been fulfilled, “[further] considering that there has been no significant impediment not to have complied with this operative paragraph and even more so that the State delays its compliance for 2010 once again.” Thus, “since the term established by the [...] Court has already elapsed and [taking into account] that this issue does not deserve any complex proceedings for compliance[,] a month is more than sufficient time to complete [same] and it would be good to do so on the next anniversary of [the] massacre on November 27.” On this matter, the representatives highlighted that the publication of the Judgment “is particularly important since it is a guarantee of non repetition and must be known by the Venezuelan society, taking into account the nature of the facts [of this case].” 60. That the Commission “also pointed out that the term for compliance with [this]