magnitude of the declared violations and particularly in cases of serious human rights violations.191 The effect of this public act is to recover the memory of the victims, recognize their dignity and give consolation to their families. 192 161. In that sense, in order to repair the damage caused to the victims and to prevent events like those in this case from happening again, it is ordered that the State carry out an Act of public acknowledgment of international responsibility in relation to the events of this case. In that act, the State must refer to the facts and human rights violations declared in this judgment. The State must ensure the participation of the victims declared in this judgment, if they so wish, and invite their representatives in national and international instances to the event. The State and the victims or their representatives must agree on the method of carrying out the public act, as well as pertinent details, including where and when it is to be held. In addition, the State must broadcast this act over the media in the broadest way possible, including broadcasting over radio, television, and social networks of the Presidency of the Republic. The state authorities who must be present or participate in this event must be Senior officials of the State. The State has a term of one year from the notification of this judgment to fulfill this obligation. F. Other measures requested 162. The Commission requested, as guarantees of non-repetition, to adopt legislative, administrative, or other measures to: a) "eradicate the Peasant Defense Boards as entities that perform public duties"193 and b) "that investigations into forced disappearance of persons in Ecuador, including the investigation and criminal proceedings, as well as the search processes for remains of disappeared persons, comply with the standards described in the Merits Report." 163. The representative did not refer to the measures requested by the Commission. 164. Regarding the request for the eradication of the Peasant Defense Boards as entities that perform public duties, the State noted that it should be taken into consideration that "[these] began as a social organization in the Province of Tungurahua in the early sixties, with the fundamental objective of safeguarding the individual and collective ownership of peasant communities,” which is in accordance with the community participation that it has encouraged through its Political Constitution and laws, and on the other hand, that "it has always guaranteed a permanent police presence in Quero Canton of Tungurahua Province." 165. Regarding the request to adopt measures to ensure that investigations and criminal proceedings, as well as the search processes for the remains of missing persons, comply with the standards described in the Merits Report, the State noted that it implemented training processes Cf. Inter alia, Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 100; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 173;Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, supra, para. 47; and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 312; Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 110; Case of Julien Grisonas family v. Argentina, supra, para. 276; Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 225; Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 586, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 193. 192 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 77; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 357; Case of Julien Grisonas family v. Argentina, supra, para. 276, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, paras. 234 and 235. 193 Cf. Page 3 of the brief submission of the case by the Commission (case file on the merits, page 4). 191 -44-