177. Although the Court notes that no training measures have been requested, given the importance of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression on environmental issues, this Court deems it pertinent to order the implementation of specific programs to educate and train public officials on the rights of access to information and public participation in environmental matters, based on the aspects addressed in the judgment. Accordingly, the Court orders the State to implement, within one year, education and training programs aimed at public officials, for a period of three years. Specifically, these programs should cover the contents established in this Court’s case law, particularly in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on access to public information and participation in environmental matters and access to environmental justice, among other topics. E. Other measures requested 178. As a measure of satisfaction, the representatives requested that the State be ordered to acknowledge that in this case Mr. Baraona issued his statements in exercise of his right to freedom of expression. In response, the State argued that said measure is not appropriate since the facts claimed by Mr. Baraona are not sufficiently important nor are they related to attacks on life and personal integrity. 179. The Court considers that the reparation measures ordered in this judgment are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim. Consequently, it does not find it necessary to order additional measures of reparation. F. Compensation 180. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to provide comprehensive reparation, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, for the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report. 181. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to pay Mr. Baraona the sum of USD $100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) for all the expenses,191 time and harm, both professional and personal, caused by the sentence imposed on him and of which he was a victim. 182. The State argued that it bears no responsibility whatsoever for the charges made against it. It pointed out that no background information has been provided to demonstrate the amount of expenses and damages caused and accounted for. It noted that Mr. Baraona has continued to practice his profession and remains a known figure in environmental matters. It emphasized that neither the Commission nor the representatives have proven that Mr. Baraona suffered any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage as a result of the lawsuit brought against him by a private citizen. It argued that the Court, in order to establish the amount of compensation in equity, has evaluated the anguish and suffering in situations involving the violation of the right to freedom of expression. However, none of these situations occurred as a consequence of the criminal case involving Mr. Baraona Bray, whose case was definitively dismissed within a short period of time without further prejudice, and therefore this claim is inappropriate. F.1. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 183. The Court has established in its case law that pecuniary damage encompasses the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and 191 The costs will be analyzed in the corresponding section of this judgment. 51