C.2. Public act of recognition of international responsibility 215. The Court also finds it fitting to order an act in recognition of international responsibility for the events of this case, as a form of reparation for the victims. The proceedings should make reference to the human rights violations declared herein. It should take the form of a public ceremony in the presence of high-level government officials and the victims. The State and the victims or their representatives must agree on the method for complying with this public act of recognition and the details desired, such as the venue and date for it to take place.454 The State has one year to comply with this measure, as of the date of notification of this judgment. D. Guarantees of non-recurrence 216. In view of the violations of the reinforced duty to guarantee due diligence and preferential treatment of older persons in access to justice and expeditious processes, the Court finds it fitting to order the State to create and implement, over the course of one year, a training and sensitivity plan for justice operators concerning access to justice for older adults. This training plan should include verifiable indicators for evaluating progress made during implementation of the plan. E. Other measures requested E.1. Measures of rehabilitation 217. The representatives asked for the provision of preferential, comprehensive health care, fully funded by the State, for the surviving victims in the local communities where they live. The Commission gave no opinion concerning this measure. The State argued that health services had no causal nexus with the violations being claimed and therefore should not be granted. 218. This Court would note, regarding this measure of rehabilitation, that the rights violations declared in this judgment have no direct relationship to the lending of health services. Hence, it believes that the difficulties in obtaining treatment as a result of the violation of the right to property should be taken into account in determining nonpecuniary damages (infra para. 228). E.2. Other guarantees of non-recurrence 219. The Commission claimed, in addition, that the State should adopt whatever regulatory or legal changes might be necessary to: ensure that government institutions abide by judicial rulings that recognize labor and social security rights; ensure that processes for enforcement of judgment meet the Convention-based standard of being simple and prompt; and finally, guarantee that judicial authorities who hear these processes be legally empowered and apply in practice the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee that their judgments will be obeyed. 220. The representatives asked that the State implement all necessary regulatory changes for final judicial decisions against any public institution to actually be enforced, and for the State always to be the guarantor of this enforcement. 221. The State argued that the regulation on enforcement of social security decisions lies outside the body of facts of the case, as no pension rights are in dispute. With respect to the processes of execution of judgment, it reiterated that the Labor Code has undergone substantial reform, 454 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 353, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, para. 178. 70