185. The representative asked the Court to order the State to “publish the judgment in two national newspapers with widespread circulation, and also to order the State to publish the judgment in the Ecuadorian official gazette, and to prepare and publish a leaflet summarizing the Court’s decisions.” 186. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to make an acknowledgement of international responsibility and a public apology as part of the measures required to make adequate reparation to Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and to her mother, Melba Peralta Mendoza, for the human rights violations determined in Report No. 75/11. 187. The State asked the Court “not [to admit] the measures requested by the representative of the presumed victim because the measures of satisfaction had been complied with fully.” This was because, under the Compliance Agreement signed by the State and Mrs. Suárez Peralta on January 25, 2012, the State had published a “Public apology” in the Ecuadorian newspaper El Universo and, on August 3, 2012, it had placed a “Plaque with a public apology” in the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas. 188. The Court observes that, under the Compliance Agreement signed by the State and Mrs. Suárez Peralta, the State published a “Public apology” in the Ecuadorian newspaper El Universo, which refers to the recommendations made in Report 75/11 based on the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. The State also placed a “Plaque with a public apology” in the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas. 189. In this regard, the Court finds that these acts of public apology constitute sufficient and adequate measures of reparation to redress, in part, the violations caused to the victims and to achieve the objective indicated by the representative. 230 However, they did not take into account the considerations set out in this Judgment. Therefore, as it has in other cases, 231 the Court finds it necessary that, within six months of notification of this Judgment, the State publish, once, in the Ecuadorian official gazette, the official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court and, also, that the entire Judgment remain available for one year on an official website of Ecuador. b) Request for reparation for damage to the life project 190. The representative asked the Court to order the State “to cover the cost of the years that remain for Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta to complete her law studies at the Universidad Laica Vicente Rocafuerte.” He also asked the Court to order the State “to guarantee the intermediate and higher education of the children Gandy Alberto Cerezo Suárez, Katherine Madeline Cerezo Suárez and Marilyn Melba Cerezo Suárez by providing them with scholarships. The provisions of scholarships would constitute a form of reparation, because in restitution of what they could not have, it would give them the opportunity to realize the life project that was affected when [their] financial situation deteriorated. 191. The State advised the Court that, “the life project of Mrs. Suárez was never limited, [because she] withdrew and lost a year, [whereas] during her first years at university, […] she passed the courses without any problem.” It also indicated that “in Ecuador, education 230 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 110. 231 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of the Massacres of Río Negro v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 287. 52