60 of the notification of this judgment to comply with this aspect. iii) Public acknowledgment of international responsibility 249. As it has in other cases,189 the Court considers it necessary, in order to repair the damage caused to the victim and his next of kin and to avoid the repetition of facts similar to those of this case, that the State conduct a public act acknowledging its international responsibility for the violations declared in this judgment. This act must refer to the human rights violations declared in the judgment. It must be conducted in a public ceremony in the presence of authorities representing the State, and of those individuals who have been declared victims in this judgment, and the State must invite the latter with sufficient notice. The act must be carried out within six months of notification of this judgment. iv) Naming of a street “in memoriam” 250. Both the Commission and the representatives requested that a street “located in a significant zone” be given the name of Heliodoro Portugal; the representatives asked specifically that it be the street where the café in which Mr. Portugal was detained is located. 251. In this regard, the State indicated that, on December 27, 2006, the Municipal Council of the District of Panama agreed to give the name of Heliodoro Portugal to a street in the Santa Ana district, where “Mr. Portugal carried out his political activities”; this met with “the approval of Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal.” 252. As reported by the parties, although the naming of a street “Heliodoro Portugal” in the Santa Ana district was approved, the Municipal Council’s decision in this regard has not yet been implemented. 253. Regarding the above, the Court takes note of the State’s decision to designate a street in memory of Heliodoro Portugal, which will contribute to the due reparation of the next of kin in this sphere. v) Medical and psychological care 254. The Commission and the representatives requested that the State provide medical and psychological care and the necessary medication for Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal. 255. The State maintained that it had already provided these rehabilitation measures to Graciela De León de Rodríguez, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal; that the treatment included “specialized care in the disciplines of internal medicine, psychiatry and urology,” and that its continuation depended solely on the wishes of the beneficiaries. 256. The Court considers, as it has in other cases,190 that it is necessary to order a measure of reparation that seeks to reduce the physical and mental suffering that the facts of this case have caused the victims. To this end, the Court considers it necessary to declare the State’s obligation to provide medical and psychological care free of charge and 189 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 181, para. 103; Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 126, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 18, para. 193. 190 Cf. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 29, para. 129; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 201, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 18, para. 200.