189. The beneficiaries have a period of six months, counted from the notification of this Judgment, to confirm with the State that they intend to receive psychological and/or psychiatric care.161 In turn, the State will have a maximum period of six months, counted from the receipt of said request, to effectively provide the requested care. Regardless, and without prejudice to the established deadlines, the State must comply with the ordered measure as quickly as possible.162 190. Based on the above, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to grant the representatives' request to order the payment of a sum of money for rehabilitation measures. Finally, it is noted that the claim referring to the payment of the expenses incurred for medical care and treatment derived from the damages suffered was also formulated with regard to compensation for consequential damages, for which the Court will analyze said matter when deciding what is pertinent as to this last issue. D. Measures of satisfaction 191. The Commission requested that the comprehensive reparation of the alleged victims include measures of satisfaction. 192. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to take the following measures of satisfaction: a) publish the Judgment “in all the newspapers with [n]ational circulation […], as well as […] widely on radio and television system with [n]ational coverage, in primetime slots and times, as well as on internet portals,” and b) build a monument in the center of the City of Atacames for the preservation of memory. 193. The State argued that the Ombudsman's Office "unveiled a memorial plaque for the victims of the Casierra case," so it is unnecessary to order additional measures in this regard. D.1. Publication of the Judgment 194. As it has done in other cases,163 the Court orders that within a period of six months counted from the notification of this Judgment, the State publish in a legible and adequate font size, the following: a) the official summary of this Judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court, one time only, in a newspaper with wide national circulation, in a legible and adequate font size, and c) this Judgment in its entirety, available for a period of one year on an official website, in a manner accessible to the public and from the home page of the website. The State must inform this Court immediately once it proceeds to make each of the publications ordered, regardless of the oneyear term it has to present its first report, as indicated in operative paragraph 12 of this Judgment. D.2. Commemorative plaque for the preservation of memory 195. The Court takes note that the State indicated that a “plaque was discovered in memory of Luis Eduardo Casierra [Quiñonez] and the other victims in the case.” In this regard, the documentation provided reflects that said plaque was installed in Atacames and discovered on November 19, 2017, as part of the follow-up of the non-pecuniary reparation agreements signed (supra paras. 183 and 184), meaning that there was apparently consensus and coordination between the victims, the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Culture, the municipal government of Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 253, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 229. 162 Cf. Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 229. 163 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 03, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 167. 161 43