the truth of the events, recovery of the memory of the deceased victims, and implementation of an adequate program of psychosocial care for surviving family members.” C.1. Measures of satisfaction a) Public act of acknowledgement of responsibility 299. The representatives requested the organization of an “[a]ct of public acknowledgment by the State during which it should assume responsibility for acts (responsibility of its agents in the execution of the bombing, forced displacement, and obstruction of the criminal investigation) and omissions (failure to adopt measures of protection for the civilian population, lack of due diligence in the criminal investigations) in the acts perpetrated against the population of Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, and subsequently.”431 The Commission did not present specific arguments in relation to this measure of reparation. 300. Regarding the requested measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction, the State indicated, in general, that articles 141 to 143 of Law 1448 of 2011 (Victims Act), refers to the symbolic reparation of the victims, the establishment of the national day of solidarity with and remembrance of the victims (April 9 each year) and the State’s obligation to remember, as guarantees of full reparation for the victims, so that the measures of satisfaction and rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition for the presumed victims are not necessary because the State has already initiated the process of integral reparation of the victims of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention.432 Regarding the measures of satisfaction addressed at obtaining the State’s public acknowledgement of responsibility and the recovery of the memory, the State directed attention to article 139 of Law 1448 of 2011 which stipulates that “[t]he national Government, under the National Plan for Integral Attention to and Reparation for Victims, must take measures designed to re-establish the dignity of the victim and to disseminate the truth about what happened, in keeping with the entities that constitute the National System of Attention to and Reparation for Victims. […] The measures of satisfaction should be interpreted merely from an enunciative perspective, which implies that others can be added to them: (a) public acknowledgement […] of the victim’s character, dignity, name and honor, before the community and the offender; […] (c) commemorative acts; (d) public acknowledgements, [and] (e) public homages […].”433 301. The Court notes that the State referred to Colombia’s domestic laws which establish that the State must take measures designed to re-establish the dignity of the victim, including measures of satisfaction such as those requested. In this regard, the Court assesses positively the existence of these provisions of domestic law, despite which it finds that, in the instant case, it is appropriate to order the measure requested by the representatives. Consequently, the Court, as it has in other cases,434 orders the State to organize a public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility in which it refers to the facts of the case and to the responsibility declared in the terms of this Judgment. The act must be broadcast on the television and/or the radio and must be held within six month/one year of notification of this Judgment. Likewise, owing to the specific 431 The representatives also indicated that “[t]he act must be presided by senior State authorities, take place at a symbolic site in the department of Arauca agreed with the victims and their representatives, and the National Government must ensure that it is broadcast in direct by the State television stations and disseminated in the mass media.” 432 The State also indicated that “the local and government authorities, in agreement with the Social Solidarity Network, have signed and executed contract 0499/1999. Its main purpose was the reconstruction of Santo Domingo and the improvement of its housing. In addition, the Social Solidarity Network awarded a grant equivalent to five million pesos (5,000,000) to each of the persons who claimed that they had been affected by the ill-fated events that occurred in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998.” 433 The State also indicated that “the public apology and the acknowledgement of responsibility are categorized as measures designed to restore the dignity of the victims and to raise awareness about the events that gave rise to the human rights violations.” In addition, it indicated that “this measure also contributes to provide satisfaction to the victims and as a guarantee of non-repetition, because it commemorates the victims and results in awareness of the events that originated the non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention.” 434 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 81, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 277. ‐ 86 ‐