reparations solely as beneficiaries, that is, in the event of the victims’ deaths, in accordance with domestic law271. 246. International jurisprudence and, in particular, the case law of the Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that a judgment per se constitutes a form of reparation.272 Nonetheless, considering the circumstances of the case under examination and the burdens placed upon the victims due to the violations of Articles 24, 11.2, 17.1, 17.4, 19, and 8.1 of the American Convention committed against Ms. Atala and the girls M., V. and R., the Court deems it appropriate to order certain measures of reparation, as explained in the following paragraphs. B. Obligation to investigate and enforce legal consequences for the officials responsible 247. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to “investigate and enforce the corresponding legal consequences vis-à-vis for the members of the judiciary who discriminated against and arbitrarily interfered with the private and family life of Karen Atala, and who failed to fulfill their international obligations to guarantee the best interests of [the girls] M., V., and R.” 248. The representatives presented no arguments in this regard. 249. The State indicated that the Commission’s request “appears to depart from the jurisprudence” of the Inter-American Court, and expressed its “deep concern” over the request for sanctions against members of the judiciary. The State argued that the Court does not have the authority to “to investigate and sanction the individual conduct of [State] agents who may have [committed] [human rights] violations [as it is only competent] to [adjudge] the international liability of States.” 250. In this regard, the Court notes that the Commission did not specify certain matters that would enable the Court to consider this request in depth. For example, it did not indicate whether domestic laws make provision for the disciplinary authorities to investigate the commission of discriminatory acts. Moreover, the specificities of this case were not analyzed in relation to other previous cases in which such measures have been ordered. Consequently, the Court considers that the request submitted by the Commission is not valid. C. Other measures of full redress: satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition 251. The Court shall determine other measures that seek to redress the non-pecuniary damage, and shall order measures of public scope or repercussion273. 1. Rehabilitation: Medical and psychological treatment for the victims 271 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 114 and Case of April Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 90. 272 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 102. 273 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84 and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para. 326. 74