10. The State reported that it published the relevant parts of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in the "O Globo” and “Correio Paranaense” newspapers. Likewise, it published the Judgment on the official websites of the Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency, of the Procuradoria Geral de Justiça and of the Court of Justice and Government, the latter of the state of Parana. 11. In this regard, both the representatives and the Commission indicated that this measure of reparation has been fully complied with. 12. The Court takes cognizance of the information provided by the parties, which includes the supporting documentation of the publications in the "O Globo" newspaper on July 23, 2010, in "Correio Paranaense" on August 10, 2010 and in the Official Gazette published on September 27, 2010. In addition, the State furnished evidence of the publication of the Judgment on the official websites mentioned previously. The Court considers that the publications issued by Brazil fulfill the measure of reparation ordered by the Court in Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, and therefore declares that the State has fully complied with this measure of reparation. c) Duty to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations of the instant case (Operative Paragraph 9 of the Judgment) 13. The State reported on the proceedings undertaken in the domestic sphere with a view to complying with this obligation. The Secretariat for Human Rights forwarded the Judgment to the Procuradoria Geral de Justiça of the State of Parana, the competent body in charge of conducting the investigation. In this regard, the Public Prosecutor’s Office pointed out that it was not possible to initiate an investigation into the dissemination of the telephone conversations or the handover and dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations to the media, given that these events are considered time-barred according to section 10 of Act N° 9.296/96 and section 109 of the Brazilian Criminal Code. Consequently, any investigation into the facts of the case is hindered by the domestic laws, which do not allow for such a proceeding if the crime is time-barred. Likewise, the Public Prosecutor’s Office analyzed the possibility that the facts might be characterized as crimes against humanity or as grave human rights violations but concluded that these would not fall within such a category. In response to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Secretariat for Human Rights inquired about the possibility of conducting a civil investigation or an “investigative procedure […] even though, in the end, it is concluded because the matters investigated are time-barred.” However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office opposed such a procedure and noted that the statute of limitations also applies to the civil sphere and that the criminal investigation would not constitute an end in itself. Furthermore, the State argued that the Court’s criteria regarding the non-applicability of statutory limitations to a criminal action concerning grave human rights violations could not be applied. Brazil emphasized that “the instant case concerns the violation of the right to privacy, resulting from the 'breach of telephone secrecy’ [quiebra del secreto telefónico], an action that is not classified as a grave human right violation.” Moreover, there was no evidence to suggest that the State’s conduct was aimed at promoting the impunity of the transgressors. 14. The representatives noted that more than ten years have elapsed since the case was brought before the Inter-American System and yet the State has only recently mentioned the statute of limitations in its report on compliance, for which reason this argument could not be accepted. Furthermore, they stated that aside from the violations of the victims’ right to intimacy, privacy and freedom of association, it 4