175. In relation to the reparations related to its partial acknowledgement of responsibility, the State indicated that in mediation proceedings finalized with other military personnel, which were also extended to Mr. Grijalva, the following measures were agreed: a) apologies published on April 15, 2015, in El Telégrafo, a daily newspaper with national circulation; b) a ceremony in the First Naval Zone, organized by the Ministry of National Defense, held on April 24, 2015, during which a plaque with a public apology was placed in a military facility, and c) Official letter No. ARE-DIGREHAJU-2015-0196-O was issued on April 16, 2015, instructing the Officers and Crew Departments to exclude from the General Order the term “discharge for misconduct and for the good of the service.” 176. In this regard, the Court notes and appreciates the measures of reparation implemented by the State, within the framework of the agreements reached with other military personnel, in which Mr. Grijalva Bueno was included. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the violations declared in this judgment, the Court considers it pertinent to order the measures specified below. 177. As it has done in other cases,144 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible font of appropriate size, the following: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court , once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with widespread national circulation, and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on the official web site of the Ministry of National Defense. The State must advise the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year timeframe for presenting its first report, as established in the tenth operative paragraph of this Judgment. 178. The Court considers that these measures of satisfaction are sufficient to remedy this aspect in the present case. D. Other measures 179. The Commission requested that the State carry out the criminal, administrative or other types of investigations related to the human rights violations declared in its report in an impartial, effective manner and within a reasonable time, in order to clarify the facts and establish the respective responsibilities. 180. The State did not comment explicitly on this measure of reparation requested by the Commission; however, it indicated that if the Court should grant such measures of reparation, these should be related only to those facts for which it acknowledged its responsibility. 181. With regard to the request to investigate proposed by the Commission, the Court considers that this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim. E. Compensation Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of Guachalá Chimbó et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 236. 144 45