3 B. C. D. VIII. Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible and adopt all the necessary domestic legislative measures…..75 B1. Investigation, prosecution and, where appropriate, punishment of those responsible….75 B2. Determination of the whereabouts of María Claudia….76 Other means of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition…..77 C1. Satisfaction…..77 i. Public act of acknowledgment of international ….77 responsibility and recovery of the memory of María Claudia García de Gelman….78 ii. Publication of the judgment…..79 C2. Guarantees of non-repetition…..79 i. Creation of specialized units to carry out the investigation of complaints of grave violations of human rights and the elaboration of a protocol for the collection and identification of the bodily remains….79 ii. Training for the operators of justice….80 iii. Public access to the State files…..80 iv. Other claims…..81 Compensation, costs, and expenses…..81 D1. Pecuniary damage…..81 D2. Non-pecuniary damage…..82 D3. Costs and expenses…..83 D4. Method of compliance with the payments ordered…..85 OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS…..86 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 1. On January 21, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, an application against the Eastern Republic of Uruguay in relation to the case of Juan Gelman, María Claudia García de Gelman, and María Macarena Gelman García2 (hereinafter “the case of Gelman”) v. Uruguay.3 On March 9, 2007, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 30/07, wherein it declared the admissibility of the case and on July 18, 2008, approved, under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, the Report on the Merits No. 32/08.4                                                          2 Also mentioned as María Macarena Tauriño Vivian, due to the facts of the case. 3 The Commission appointed as delegats Ms. Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Mr. Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary; and as legal advisors Ms. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Christina Cerna and Lilly Ching, attorneys of the Executive Secretary. 4 In this report, the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, with Articles I.b, III, IV, and V of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons and with Articles 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, to the detriment of María Claudia García; of Articles 1(1), 2, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, Articles I.b, III, IV, and V of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1, 6, 8, and 11 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the next of kin of María Claudia García; Articles 5(1) and 1(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Juan Gelman, his family and María Macarena Gelman; Articles 3, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 1(1) of the American Convention, Article XII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles VI, VII, and XVII of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, to the detriment of Juan Gelman and his family and of María Macarena Gelman. In this report, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State: a) carry out a complete and impartial investigation in order to identify and punish those responsible for the human rights violations in