commemorate them; (f) the production and dissemination of an audiovisual presentation; (g) the designation of a national day of the victims of the massacres; (h) the provision of medical and psychosocial services to the victims; (i) the creation of conditions for the return of those who are still displaced, and (j) the promotion of a social development program for the victims of this case. Regarding the request for reparations related to ceasing to “honor those responsible for the massacre,” the State submitted certain considerations and expressed its willingness to comply with the Court’s decision. With regard to the costs and expenses requested by the representatives, it indicated that “the amount […] exceeds the precedents established by the Court.” 19. On January 16, 2012, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the signature of the Peace Accords, the President of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes, gave a speech in El Mozote, in which he stated: As Head of State, […] I acknowledge that, in the cantons of El Mozote, El Pinalito, Ranchería, Los Toriles, Jocote Amarillo, Cerro Pando, La Joya and Cerro Ortiz, during the days and nights of December 11, 12 and 13, 1981, troops of the Atlacatl Rapid Deployment Infantry Battalion of the Armed Forces of El Salvador murdered almost one thousand persons, mainly children. Here, numerous acts of brutality and human rights violations were committed: innocent people were tortured and executed; women and children were raped, and hundreds of Salvadoran men and women form part of a long list of disappeared persons, while others had to emigrate and give up everything to save their lives. […] For this massacre, for the aberrant human rights violations, and for the abuse perpetrated, on behalf of the State of El Salvador […] I apologize to the families of the victims and to the neighboring communities. I apologize to the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who still do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones. I apologize to the Salvadoran people who were victims of this atrocious and unacceptable violence. This apology, which is not intended to erase the pain, is an act of acknowledgement and to honor the victims of this tragedy. […] It is the expression of our commitment to make reparation, morally and materially, to the extent permitted by State’s resources, to the members of the victims’ families. [And] it is also an act to acknowledge responsibility before the Salvadoran people and before history; because, by acknowledging the truth and acting with justice, we establish the basis for peace and coexistence. 20. It is worth noting that, in similar fashion, during the public hearing, the State expressed “its profound regret for the deplorable acts perpetrated by officers and members of the Armed Forces of El Salvador, above all the Atlacatl Infantry Battalion which, in December 1981, exterminated the civilian population in the villages and cantons of El Mozote, Rancheria, Los Toriles, Cerro Pando, La Joya, Jocote Amarillo, El Pinalito and Cerro Ortiz, among other places, such as the village of Arambala.” In addition, it acknowledged the content of the testimony of Dorila Márquez, María del Rosario López and María Margarita Chicas as the truth of what happened, and it apologized to them and their families “for the incalculable damage the said State agents had perpetrated with such infinite cruelty,” extending this State apology to the surviving victims and next of kin of the said massacres. In addition, the State presented, among other documents, a “[s]upplement on the twentieth anniversary of the signature of the Peace Accords in El Salvador, containing a list of [936] victims of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, provided by the community of El Mozote itself.” 21. The Commission expressed its satisfaction for the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and considered that it had an historical value of the utmost relevance because of the particular severity of the facts of this case. In this regard, it considered that “the content of the State’s answering brief reveals its acceptance of the Court’s competence […] to hear this case in full; in other words, including all the facts described in report on merits 177/10 and acknowledged as true by the State in its answering brief.” In addition, it noted that, although the State had acknowledged the facts and the international responsibility derived from them, it had not included an explicit statement on each of the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights, of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. Consequently, and based on the need to contribute to the recovery of the historical memory of the executed victims and to the reparative effect for the next of kin of the judicial clarification of the facts, it considered that the Court must make a detailed determination of the facts of this case and their legal consequences in light of the applicable inter-American instruments. It also emphasized the importance of the State establishing a 9