64 235. Based on the above, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the payment of the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to each victim as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The State must pay this amount directly to the beneficiaries, within one year of notification of this judgment. C) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 236. In this section, the Court will decide the measures of satisfaction that seek to repair the non-pecuniary damage, and that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will order measures with public scope and repercussions. i) Obligation to publish the judgment 237. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to publish this judgment in a national newspaper as a measure of satisfaction for the victims. 238. Neither the representatives nor the State submitted specific arguments in this regard. 239. As the Court has ordered in other cases,201 the State must publish once in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with widespread circulation in the state of Paraná, the cover page, Chapters I, VI to XI, without the footnotes, and the operative paragraphs of this judgment as a measure of satisfaction. In addition, as the Court has ordered on previous occasions,202 this judgment must be published in its entirety on an official web site of the Federal State and of the state of Paraná. The State must make these publications in the newspapers and on the Internet within six and two months, respectively, of notification of this judgment. ii) Public acknowledgement of international responsibility 240. The Commission asked the Court to order to State to publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the violation of the victim’s human rights in this case. 241. The representatives, in their pleadings and motions brief, asked that an act of apology and redress should be organized in the same media and at the same times as those at which the reports on the dissemination of the intercepted conversations were presented. 242. The State did not submit additional arguments in this regard. 243. The Court has considered the characteristics of this case and notes that, usually although not exclusively, it orders a public act to acknowledge international responsibility as a measure of reparation for violations of the right to life and to personal integrity and freedom.203 The Court does not find that this measure is necessary to repair the violations found in this case, because the judgment and its publication constitute, per se, important measures of reparation. 201 Cf. Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, Operative paragraph 5(d); Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 415, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 199. 202 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 60, para. 195, and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 252. 203 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note *, para. 239.