since it fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations.278 The absence of a complete and effective investigation of the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for the victims, who have the right to know the truth of what happened.279 172. The Court recalls that in Chapter VIII-1 it declared that the investigations carried out into the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza in June 1998, related to the possible participation of four other persons, did not comply with the minimum standards of due diligence by virtue of the failure to carry out a series of essential investigative procedures requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (supra paras. 132 and 133) as well as other actions that should have been carried out in order to establish whether the homicide of Mrs. Barbosa de Souza had been committed because of her gender. In addition, it was determined that the investigations were permeated by gender stereotypes, which not only revictimized Márcia Barbosa de Souza's next of kin, but also reflected the absence of a gender perspective in the investigation. 173. The Court considers that a possible reopening of the investigations into the four possible participants in the homicide of Márcia Barbosa is not appropriate. Nevertheless, the suffering caused by the impunity resulting from the flagrant lack of due diligence in conducting essential investigative actions to ascertain the possible participation of other persons in the serious crime in question, as well as the particularly negative effect of the prolonged impunity on persons in a situation of great vulnerability, such as Márcia’s mother, who is an elderly person, 280 will be duly considered in the section on compensation. C. Measures of satisfaction 174. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to publish the official summary of the judgment in two newspapers with widespread circulation and to publish the judgment in its entirety for a minimum period of one year on the main web sites of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba and the Judiciary. They also requested that the Court order the State to: “hold an act of acknowledgement of responsibility, the terms of which should be agreed with the victims and their representatives”; that “the act should take place respecting the family’s right to privacy” and that “in order to have real meaning for the victims, it is essential that said act includes an apology to the relatives of Márcia Barbosa, and in particular to her parents, for all the suffering caused by the multiple omissions and obstacles.” Furthermore, they requested that the event be attended by at least one high-ranking authority from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba, that it be held in the state of Paraíba and that the other details be organized, discussed and agreed upon in advance with the victims and their representatives. 175. The State argued that, if the Court finds any violation of the American Convention, “the requirement to publish the official summary of the judgment and its full text on an official Brazilian website, in the manner traditionally adopted by the Court, would already achieve the purpose pursued by the representatives, so that any other request by the representatives in terms of symbolic reparations would not only be unreasonable, but also costly from the point Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 162. 279 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 146, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family, supra, para. 288. Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 146, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 102. 280 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No 349, para. 127, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with the judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human rights of July 21, 2020, para. 15. See also Inter-American Convention on the Protection of the Human Rights of Older Persons. 278 -49-