C. Measures of integral reparation: guarantees of non-repetition rehabilitation and satisfaction, and 254. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment can constitute per se a form of reparation.312 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case and the adverse effects on the victims resulting from the violations of the American Convention declared to their detriment, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the following measures of reparation. 1. Rehabilitation a) Medical and psychological assistance for the victims 255. The Commission asked the Court to order adequate pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations for the human rights violations declared in its merits report, including the implementation of a suitable program of psychosocial care for the survivors. 256. The representatives asked that the surviving victims be compensated for future medical and psychological expenses. 257. The State did not refer to this form of reparation. 258. The Court considered that, owing to the demeaning treatment of the survivors, the State had violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the Convention (supra para. 109). 259. In addition, the Court finds, as it has in other cases,313 that it is necessary to order a measure of reparation that provides appropriate care for the mental and physical problems that the victims have suffered owing to the violations declared in this Judgment. In order to help repair this harm, the Court establishes that the State has the obligation to provide, free of charge and immediately, the medical and psychological treatment required by the victims, following their informed consent and for the time necessary, including the provision of medication free of charge. If the victims reside in Dominican Republic, the medical and psychological treatment must be provided by State institutions and personnel. 314 If the State does not have these resources, it must have recourse to specialized private or civil society institutions.315 This treatment shall be provided, insofar as possible, in the medical centers nearest to their place of residence.316 260. When providing the said treatment, the specific circumstances and needs of each victim must also be taken into consideration so that they are offered collective, family, and individual care, as agreed with each of them and following an individual assessment.317 312 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 259. 313 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 287. 314 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, para. 42, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 289. 315 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 235, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 253(e). 316 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 270, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 253(b). 317 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 278, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 253.c. 68