3 This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (namely, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * * * 7. The State indicated that, according to the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), the text of the judgment must be published in a newspaper with widespread circulation in the state of Paraná and in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and it must include paragraphs 78 to 265, in addition to the introduction and the operative paragraphs. The State alleged that, owing to the size of the said text, it would have to be published in a separate insert in the newspaper, which would not fulfill the purpose of this measure of reparation because: (i) the text of the publication would be very long and the language used was not easily comprehensible for the general public, and (ii) the cost would be disproportionate, exceeding the amount awarded to the victims as compensation. It affirmed that the Court did not usually order the publication of such long excerpts from a judgment and, based on Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, it inquired if there had been a material error in the decision. However, if there was no material error, it consulted the Court about possible alternatives for complying with the said obligation using a teleological, rather than a literal, interpretation of the judgment. In this regard, it indicated that this case required that the State be granted a certain degree of discretionary authority to apply this teleological interpretation of what had been ordered in the judgment in a way that was more in keeping with the protection of human rights. Consequently, it asked the Court to accept an alternative measure of reparation for the publication ordered, such as: (i) reading parts or a summary of the judgment on the official radio program, “A voz do Brasil”; (ii) publication of a summary of the judgment, in a language accessible to the public, on approximately a quarter page of a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and/or (iii) publication of the complete judgment on other official web pages that were extensively accessed 8. The representatives argued that Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that the request to rectify the judgment owing to a material error must be presented within one month of notification of the judgment. They indicated that the parties were notified of the judgment on August 6, 2009; consequently, the State’s request was time-barred. They also stated that there had been no material error and, as the Court’s case law revealed, the Court has ordered the publication of numerous complete chapters of its judgments as a way of attributing responsibility to the State and as a guarantee of non-repetition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to reduce the alleged cost of the publication, they proposed abridging the text to be published, but indicated that it must include: (i) the cover page; (ii) paragraphs 1 to 4, 86 to 117, 125 to 146, 150 to 164, 169 to 180, 194 to 214, and 221 to 247, of Chapters I, VII, VIII, IX and XI, indicated in the eighth operative paragraph, and (iii) the operative paragraphs. They also stated that, if the Court admitted the State’s request to publish a summary of the judgment, the summary must: (i) include the full text of the cover 4 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph, and El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.