259. The Court also notes that in the Judgment delivered in the case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, it ordered the State to provide psychological or psychiatric treatment to B.A., D.A., E.A., F.A. and G.A., among other victims, if they so requested. 370 Accordingly, the Court wishes to clarify that the psychological and psychiatric treatment ordered in this Judgment may be provided jointly with that offered in the case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”). C.3. Satisfaction 260. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to publish this Judgment “at least in the Official Gazette and in the two newspapers with the widest national circulation.” The State “acknowleg[ed] that as part of the obligations acquired upon accepting the Court’s contentious jurisdiction […,] it must publish any Judgments delivered against it.” However, it “consider[ed] that there is no reason why it should incur additional publishing expenses, [since] the Judgments are published in its own media […]”. The Commission did not refer to this point. 261. As it has done in other cases, 371the Court considers it pertinent to order the State to publish, within a period of six months from notification of this Judgment: a) an official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official Gazette; b) an official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with wide national circulation, and c) the Judgment in its entirety, keeping the names of the victims confidential, and available for at least one year on an official website of the State of Guatemala. C.4. Guarantees of non-repetition C.4.1. Public policy for the protection of human rights defenders 262. The Commission and the representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures of a legislative, institutional, judicial or, in the case of the representatives, administrative nature, aimed at reducing the risks faced by human rights defenders. The State reiterated that it was not proven that Mr. A.A. was a human rights defender or that his death was “related to his supposed role as a defender […].” It also held that it “has already adopted the measures required in this regard by the Commission […]”. 263. In relation to the adoption of measures to reduce the risks faced by human rights defenders, this Court has established that the State has planned and/or implemented various measures aimed at addressing those risks (supra note 74). However, Guatemala did not provide the Court with information about their effectiveness. Consequently, the State must implement, within a reasonable time, a public policy for the protection of human rights defenders, taking into account, at least, the following requirements: 372 a) the participation of human rights defenders, civil society organizations and experts in the formulation of standards for the regulation of a program for the protection of the group in question; b) the protection program should adopt a comprehensive and inter-institutional approach to this problem, based on the risk posed by each situation and adopt immediate measures to address complaints by defenders; c) the creation of a risk analysis model to adequately determine the risk and the protection needs of each defender or group; d) the creation of an information management system on the status of the prevention and protection of human rights defenders; e) the design of protection plans in response to specific risks faced by each defender and to the nature of his/her work; f) the promotion of a culture of legitimization and protection of the work of human rights defenders, and g) the provision of sufficient human and financial resources to respond to the real needs for protection of human rights defenders. 370 371 372 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, supra, para. 339 and Annex. Cf. Case Cantoral Benavides, supra, para. 79, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 230. Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 243. 75