4 9. Likewise, in the course of the public hearing, the Inter-American Commission indicated that no steps have been taken following the Judgment about the investigation into the homicide of Ramón Mauricio Garcia Prieto Giralt, and just a few ones regarding the threats, and that it set much store by the willingness of the State to further the investigation, which must be diligent and effective. Furthermore, it pointed out the lack of a coordination mechanism which would make compliance with the Judgment easier, which would be related to the provisional measures, for the investigating body reached at the domestic level conclusions contradicting facts already determined to be proven by the Court in its Judgment. 10. From the information and the observations the parties filed, this Tribunal notes that the State, after the Judgment in the instant case was delivered, has not taken action to effect a prompt, comprehensive and effective investigation, up to the standards set forth in international rules and case law4, in order to comply with operative paragraph number five in the Judgment. Therefore, the State has the obligation to step up its efforts and to take all pertinent action, forthwith, in order to further the investigations into the homicide and into the threats and acts of harassment suffered by Mr. José Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann and by Mrs. Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto. The Tribunal sets much store by what the State expressed, in the sense that it is fully prepared to deploy new and determined efforts to further the investigations pending. For which reasons, the Court deems it essential that the State file updated, detailed and complete information about how each one of the investigations and of the steps taken has been implemented. 11. As to operative paragraph number six in the Judgment, wherein the obligation the State has to publish in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper of broad national coverage the pertaining parts of the Judgment (supra Having Seen Clause Number 1) was established, the State reported that the publications ordered were effected within six months from the date notice of the Judgment was served upon it in “Issue Number 114, Tome Number 389, of the Official Gazette, which appeared on June 19, [2008]”, [and in the daily news]paper “El Mundo” on May 13, [2008]”. In such regard, during the public hearing the State expressed its decision to repeat the publication effected in the “El Mundo” daily newspaper, which was challenged by the representatives, avoiding repetition of the shortcomings pointed out with respect to the previous publication, and having the victims and their representatives take part in the design thereof. 12. In their comments, the representatives acknowledged that the publications ordered in the Judgment were made by the State; however, they indicated that none of these was effected in one of the two newspapers with higher circulation and greater national coverage, something which considerably reduced the social impact of the Judgment. They added that the parts published were difficult and almost impossible to read because of both the size of the font used as well as the pale tone in which it was printed, something which prevented such publication from complying with the intention it has, that is to say to make the Judgment accessible to the population. In the course of the public hearing, in view of the 4 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause Number Thirty; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, Considering Clause Number Eighteen; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Thirteen.