177. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established that Judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation. 229 Nevertheless, considering circumstances of the case and the effects on the victims arising from the violations of American Convention declared against them, the Court finds it pertinent to determine following measures of reparation. the the the the 1. Rehabilitation a) Request for medical assistance 178. Both the Commission and the representative asked the Court to order the State “[t]o take the necessary measures to provide immediately and free of charge, through its specialized health institutions and in the place of residence of Mrs. Suárez Peralta, the medical care that she requires, including any medicines she needs, based on her ailments.” 179. The representative also indicated that “[t]he State’s obligation to provide medical services supposes that it must assume the cost of the doctors that the victim chooses or of those doctors who usually attend the victim.” In addition, he indicated that this reparation should include the “cost of the clinical examinations and the appropriate treatments prescribed by the specialized doctors.” 180. For its part, the State indicated that it “can provide the necessary services to attend not only Melba Suárez, but also any individual who needs health care services; according to the State the problem is the complainant’s unwillingness […] to be treated by the Health Ministry’s trained personnel.” 181. The Court observes that, the Compliance Agreement signed by the State and Mrs. Suárez Peralta, indicated that “[t]aking into account that, in previous meetings, Mr. Cerezo and the beneficiary had stated that they [would] not accept medical attention in public hospitals, health centers and clinics, it was agreed that the State will pay the sum of US$20,000 for medical attention.” 182. In Chapter IX of this Judgment, the Court declared the violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Melba Suárez Peralta owing to the failure to carry out an effective supervision and control of the medical attention provided (supra para. 155). 183. The Court finds that, in this case, the delivery of a pecuniary reparation for medical attention, in the terms agreed by the parties in the Compliance Agreement, represents an adequate measure to guarantee the State’s treaty-based obligations in favor of the victim. 184. Based on the foregoing, the Court establishes the State’s obligation to deliver to Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta the said sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for any future medical attention and treatment she may require. 2. Satisfaction a) Request for the publication and dissemination of the Judgment, acknowledgement of international responsibility, and a public apology 229 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 323. 51