218. Given that the Court has not established the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 197), the Court did not order the respective reparation. However, it reiterates that this does not prevent the competent domestic authorities from deciding to continue the investigation and identify those responsible, in compliance with its domestic legislation, under the terms of paragraph 187 of the Judgment. B.2. Request for the creation of an unit for the investigation of crimes committed against human rights defenders 219. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to set up a unit to investigate crimes committed against human rights defenders, attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights, and assign it the necessary staff and material resources to operate effectively. They also requested that this unit be responsible for investigating the facts related to the death of Mr. Luna López. 220. For their part, neither the Commission nor the State referred to this type of measure of reparation. 221. The Court considers that the measures established in paragraph 244 of this Judgment are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims and achieve the objective indicated by the representatives.325 Therefore, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order said measure of reparation. C. Measures of rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition C. 1. Rehabilitation 222. The representatives stated that “there [i]s no question about the profound sadness that the death of Carlos Luna López caused his family.” For this reason, they asked the Court to order the Honduran State to provide free and permanent psychological care for the family members Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, Lubina Mariana Luna Valle, César Augusto Luna Valle, Allan Miguel Luna Valle, José Fredy Luna Valle and Roger Herminio Luna Valle. 223. For their part, neither the Commission nor the State referred to this type of measure of reparation. 224. Therefore, the Court finds, as it has in other cases,326 that a measure of reparation is required to offer care for the psychological suffering experienced by the family of Mr. Luna López (supra para. 212) caused by the violations established in this Judgment. For the purposes of contributing to repair this damage, the Court orders the State to provide immediately and free of charge, the necessary psychological treatment to the victims for as long as needed, including the free provision of any medication required. Moreover, the respective treatments must be provided, to the extent possible, in the health centers closest 325 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C, No. 238, para. 110 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 189. 326 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C, No. 87, paras. 42 and 45 and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, para. 311. 66