crime”; b) Course on “Prevention of Torture”; c) Course for the Attorney General’s Office of the state of Mexico. Training Course Report No. 13 of the IACHR, Case 13.333. Merits Report, Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz; d) Courses on the “American Convention on Human Rights”, “Right to Equality and Dignified Treatment” and “Charter on the Rights of Detainees”; e) Course on the “Istanbul Protocol” and “Human Rights and the Prison System”; and f) Annual Training Program of the FGJEM. In view of the foregoing, the State considered that it has complied with the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission, and expressed its willingness to continue with the aforementioned training courses for officials of the Deputy Prosecutor’s Office of Tlalnepantla. 306. The Court appreciates the State’s comments regarding the training it is currently implementing and its willingness to continue with the aforementioned training courses for the officials of the Deputy Prosecutor’s Office of Tlalnepantla. Nevertheless, given the nature of the facts that gave rise to the human rights violations established in the instant case, this Court orders the State to include in the Annual Training Program of the FGJEM, within one year, training courses on the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the investigation of all crimes. This training should be allocated the respective budget. D. Measure of satisfaction 307. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to publish “the summary of the judgment handed down in the instant case in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with national circulation. They also requested that it publish the judgment in its entirety, for at least one year, on an appropriate official website of the State, taking into account the content of the publication ordered.” The Commission did not refer to this measure of reparation. 308. The State indicated that in the event that the Court should issue a judgment, it “undertakes […] to take the necessary steps to publish and disseminate it.” The Court also notes that the Memorandum of Understanding stipulates that the State agrees to publish the summary of the Merits Report in two newspapers with national circulation, and to publish the full document on the websites of the ministries proposed by the representatives.” 309. Therefore, the Court orders, as it has done in other cases, 280 that the State publish, within six months from notification of this judgment, in a legible and adequate font size: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with wide national circulation, and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official website of the Government of the state of Mexico, in a manner accessible to the public and from the home page of the website. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has made each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term for submitting its first report as provided for in the nineteenth operative paragraph of this judgment. E. Measures of rehabilitation 310. The Commission requested that the Court order “measures of rehabilitation with physical or mental health care for the victims in the case.” The representatives requested that the State be ordered to provide “specialized medical treatment and psychosocial assistance to the family members of García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar, taking into account the individual conditions of each of the victims and their particular ailments.” They also specified that such assistance “should be provided for as long as necessary and should include the cost of any medications that are part of the treatment. The medical center that provides such physical and psychosocial care should be 280 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile, supra, para. 169. -77-