56 resources to carry out their work, as well as such measures of protection as may be ordered, if any; c) the measures of protection ordered for the benefit of the witnesses, and d) any substantive progress made in the relevant investigations and proceedings. D) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 196. In this regard, the State claimed it would “comply with such measures as the Honorable Court may order in this regard.” 1) Publication of the relevant parts of this Judgment 197. The Commission requested the Court to order the State “to publish the judgment to be rendered by the Court in the printed and broadcast media.” 198. Furthermore, the representatives requested the Court “the publication of the whole Judgment both in the Official Gazette and in two newspapers of major circulation in Honduras […], once in each.” 199. As ordered in previous cases,230 the State shall make a one-time publication, in the Official Gazette and in another major nationwide circulation newspaper, of paragraphs 1 to 8; 17 to 35; 45 to 155; and 189 to 195 of this Judgment, footnotes excluded, and the operative section of this Judgment. Such publication shall be made within six months from notice of this Judgment. 2) Public acknowledgment of international responsibility 200. The Commission requested that the Court order the State “[to hold] a ceremony of public acknowledgement of its international responsibility for the damage caused and violations committed, in a decent and significant manner as required by the goal of reparations, in consultation with the victim’s next of kin and their representatives.” 201. Moreover, the representatives requested the Court to order the State “to carry out a public acknowledgment of responsibility […] at which the State’s highest authority will apologize not only to the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández but also to the next of kin of all environmentalists who suffered human rights violations subsequently to the killing of Kawas.” Moreover, they requested that such acknowledgment be made “at a highly busy site in the city of Tela, [and be] covered [by] the main national media, [with] the members of the Kawas family being given a key role, should they so desire.” In addition, the representatives asked that “the State of Honduras prepar[e] a written document acknowledging its international responsibility and [offering its] apologies to the Kawas family […] Such document is to be a full page long and published in the printed medium with the largest national circulation.” 202. The Court has already stated in this Judgment that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility constitutes a positive contribution to this proceeding and to the application of the principles that inspire the American Convention (supra para. 32). However, in order for it to be fully effective, it is the Court’s view that the State must carry out a public 230 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra nota 10, para. 405, and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 415.