269. The Commission asked for implementation of “an adequate physical or mental health services program” for Anatole and Victoria if that is their wish and in consultation with them. It added that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the State of Argentina, measures would need to be adopted to enforce this measure in the service center of their choice or, where appropriate, a payment could be made in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of a possible treatment. 270. The representative indicated that the serious events that occurred gave rise to medical, psychological, and pharmacological expenses, for which it requested the sum of USD 48,000.00 (forty-eight thousand United States dollars) “for each of the petitioners.” 271. The State argued that the amount requested for physical and mental healthcare was high and that the request could be satisfied through the pension provided for under Law 26,913, the amount of which is reasonable for the intended purpose. 272. The Court has verified that the facts of the case affected the personal integrity of Anatole and Victoria. The Court therefore finds that it is necessary to order a measure of reparation that provides adequate care to address the psychological or psychiatric harm suffered by the victims, 295 which requires taking into account that the latter do not reside on State territory. Consequently, this Court orders the State to pay a sum of money so that both victims can cover the costs of the necessary treatments. The corresponding amount will be set in the section on compensatory damages (infra para. 312). D. Measures of satisfaction 273. The Commission asked for “the establishment and dissemination of the historical truth of the facts, as well as other measures of a similar nature in consultation” with the victims. 274. The representative asked that the State be ordered to carry out “a simple and symbolic act before the National Congress” in which the senior authorities of the three branches of government participate. It added that it is necessary “[to] take […] a look towards the future that […] opens up pathways toward justice and reconciliation, truth and harmony.” 275. The State argued that the facts of the case were widely publicized, both by CONADEP and in the judicial processes undertaken at the national level. It indicated that public apologies had been “offered in a timely manner by the highest representative of the State.” It added that the building out of which Automotores Orletti operated is now a space "for research, raising awareness, and building memory of State terrorism." It indicated that it is not necessary to order measures in this regard, without prejudice to the best judgment of the Court. D.1. Public act in acknowledgement of international responsibility 276. Consistent with the magnitude of the violations declared, and particularly in cases of serious human rights violations, this Court has ordered a public act of acknowledgment of State responsibility be held as reparations for the victims and as a guarantee of non-repetition.296 The effect of this public act is to rehabilitate the victims’ memory, the recognize their dignity, and comfort of their heirs.297 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, pars. 42 and 45, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 114. 296 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, par. 100; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, par. 173; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 47; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 312, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 110. 297 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, par. 77 and, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. 295 69