The family of one of two boys convicted of murdering 14-year-old Ana Kriégel has been "forced into hiding" by material published online, the Central Criminal Court has been told.

Senior Counsel Damien Colgan for Boy B, who was found guilty of murder by a jury on Tuesday, said he had been asked to attend to bring this to the court's attention.

The court was dealing with an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to continue orders made yesterday against Facebook and Twitter directing them to remove from their platforms any material tending to identify the boys.

The court heard there were still pictures of both boys on twitter accounts, which were putting out threats against the boys' families.

And it heard an innocent boy had been wrongly identified as one of the two convicted killers of the 14-year-old girl.

Mr Justice Michael White said An Garda Síochána should pursue "with vigour" any individual who had breached the law and the order of the court by posting material identifying the boys.

He continued the injunctions with an amendment that the companies should remove any such material which they become aware of or which is brought to their attention.

And he ruled the orders should remain in place until 5 July, when the matter will be back before the court again.

Senior Counsel Brendan Grehan said the DPP had acted quickly to seek the injunctions yesterday as she was concerned material could go viral and that every hour that passed was critical.

He said it appeared "good faith" efforts had been made by both companies to remove material although he said Facebook's efforts had been far more pro-active than Twitter's.

He said Facebook appeared to have policies, procedures and methods in place to enable it to respond quickly when such material was published.

Lawyers for Facebook said the company was extremely respectful of the court and the law and was particularly aware of the exceptional sensitivity of this trial.

In a sworn document, the company said it had met the head of media relations with the Courts' Service, two months ago to discuss the challenges the trial would present and set up a dedicated email channel through which the Courts' Service could raise any specific issues.

It said it had also instructed its content review team to be ready to respond quickly to any user reports it might receive about the case.

Facebook's Community Operations Market Manager Eoin McDonald said the company began to see user reports coming in about content identifying the two boys yesterday morning after their conviction on Tuesday.

The company said they removed the posts quickly and used "image matching technology" to prevent the images being uploaded again.

Mr McDonald said they then contacted the Courts' Service again to confirm that the orders preventing the boys from being identified remained in place.

The application by the DPP was made yesterday afternoon.

Senior Counsel Rossa Fanning said there was no legal basis for suggesting Facebook was in contempt of court. And he said Facebook was removing content which had been brought to its attention before the matter ever came to court.

He said it was also Facebook's position that it was not the publisher of the material posted by individual users.

Mr Fanning said Facebook was not aware of the names of the boys and would not be able to remove a post naming them and he said, its software would not necessarily be able to identify different pictures of the boys taken at a different time.

He said the company was concerned about being inadvertently in breach of court orders and asked the court to lift the injunctions. He said Facebook should be subject to the same laws banning the boys' identification as everyone else.

Senior Counsel Andrew Fitzpatrick for Twitter said the company took immediate steps to remove posts identified to it by the DPP and would continue to do so.

An image identified by the DPP was no longer present on the site, he said. He said Twitter could not prevent someone posting an image in advance and also asked for the injunctions to be lifted.

Mr Grehan told the court he wanted the "stick" of the injunctions to remain in place.

He said contempt proceedings against both companies were still live although the DPP was not going ahead with them today. And a court could order a company's assets to be sequestered if it considered it necessary.

He said he wondered why a company as big as Twitter did not appear to have the same image matching technology as Facebook.

And he said it was not really good enough for Twitter to say they would act if the DPP brought matters to its attention. He said he wanted some responsibility to be shouldered by the providers of the platform.

Lawyers for Boy A told the court there were still pictures of the boys on Twitter accounts and these accounts also included threats against the boys, their families, parents and communities. The court was told this was a matter of the safety of both families.

The court also heard from representatives of a school associated with the case. Barrister Shelley Horan said the school had deployed resources to monitor social media. It was concerned that an innocent child had been wrongly identified as one of the two guilty boys. And there were also allegations being made against other children. A staff member was also wrongly targetted, she said.

Mr Justice White said the trial had been "unique" and "sensitive" and the court had taken steps to respect the principles laid down in the 2001 Children Act and internationally about how the criminal justice system deals with children.

He said a central concern had been that "some idiots on social media" would breach the court's order and this had now come to pass.

The judge said An Garda Síochána should pursue with vigour any individual who had breached a court order.

While there was justified anger about a heinous crime, this was about democracy and respect for the rule of law, he said.

Anyone who was deliberately flouting the law should be clear about the seriousness of what they were doing, he said.

He said the amount of material circulating on social media was vast.

Mr Justice White said the Central Criminal Court could not be the forum for very important wider issues about the responsibilities of social media sites in relation to the content posted on them.

He continued the orders, with a slight amendment directing the companies to take down any material identifying the boys which they became aware of or was brought to their attention.

And he adjourned the contempt proceedings until 5 July when the injunctions will also be reviewed.

In a statement from Facebook a spokesperson said: "We appreciate Judge White's comments that we engaged with the Court constructively and in good faith, and that Facebook was not in contempt.

"Facebook fully understands and respects the importance of protecting the identities of those involved in this case and of complying with Judge White’s Court Order. We will continue to remove and prevent the re-sharing of content identifying Boy A and Boy B as we become aware of it on Facebook, Instagram and Messenger."