made any ruling with regard to whether or not the alleged victims complied with the requirements stipulated in article 31 of Law 17,613 to access the said rights, because it is not incumbent on this Court to make that determination. 248. The Court finds that, as a result of the violations declared in this judgment, Uruguay must guarantee that the victims in this case or their heirs can present new petitions for the determination of the rights established in the said article 31, which must be heard and decided with all due guarantees by a body with the necessary competence to make a complete analysis of the requirements established in the said article, in accordance with paragraphs 133 to 142 of this judgment. In any case, the Court reminds the State that, in keeping with Article 25(1) of the American Convention and the determinations made in this judgment, it has the obligation to guarantee an effective judicial remedy to the victims or their heirs that protects them against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 249. In order to comply with this measure of reparation, the State must determine the body that will decide the new petitions within six months. Once the State has determined this, it must adopt the pertinent measures to inform the victims in this case of that determination, as well as of the procedure under which that body will examine the new petitions, together with the time frame for their presentation. When complying with this measure, the State must take into account that the victims in this case are of different nationalities and have different places of residence. Among the pertinent measures for disseminating the said information, the State must communicate its decision to the representatives, the Inter-American Commission,282 and this Court. Also, in addition to the official publication, it must publish the information in a national daily newspaper with widespread circulation and on the official website of the State organs that it considers pertinent. 250. To comply with this measure, the State must decide the new petitions within three years at the most, from when it had determined the body responsible for decided these petitions. Uruguay must adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the victims who are accepted under article 31 of Law 17,613, following the adequate examination of their new petitions, can be recognized as shareholders in the respective Bank Asset Recovery Fund and receive the complement established in article 27 of the said law. 251. The Court notes that the Inter-American Commission has requested that this measure include individuals who were not presented as alleged victims in this case, but who had allegedly filed a remedy under article 31 of Law 17,613. In this regard, the Court finds that, in this case, it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on reparations for individuals who were not identified as victims. This conclusion does not exclude the possibility that domestic law may permit these individuals to present new petitions. B.1.b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment 252. The Court finds, as it has in other cases,283 that the State must publish within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) The official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; (b) The official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a 282 The foregoing, taking into account that the Inter-American Commission is the procedural representative of the victims who are not represented by Mrs. Barbani Duarte and Mrs. Breccia (supra para. 4). 283 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra note 278, para. 79; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 203, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 222. 90