63 251. The State argued in its final pleadings that the request for an apology was inadmissible because the applicants themselves had recognized their guilt for committing the illegal acts that had been taken to trial. It also noted that it was out of order to grant such a request because the Court, in its case law, has usually ordered such measures for cases of serious violations, such as violation of the right to life, humane treatment and personal freedom. The State cautioned, however, that none of these situations was under dispute in the instant case. 252. The State added in its final pleadings that if the names of the applicants were expunged from public registries of criminal sentences, “such a measure […] would be tantamount to holding the applicants innocent, that is, acquitting them of crimes for which they were investigated, tried and convicted.” It clarified that the applicants’ disqualification under the criminal conviction would be struck from the public record if they so requested under the procedure of reinstatement provided by article 20 of the Argentine Criminal Code. Such restitution had not been requested ever since the sentence of disqualification had been ordered in 1995 by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation. The State therefore asked that this measure be denied. 253. The State took no position regarding the request to publish the judgment as a measure of satisfaction, believing that the decision pertained to the Court C.2 Considerations of the Court 254. The Court considers it pertinent, as it has in other cases, 221 to order the State to publish, within a period of six months from notification of this Judgment, an official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, one time only, in the Official Gazette of Argentina. 255. Similarly, the Court holds that, there being insufficient evidence on which to vacate the criminal processes lodged against the applicants (supra par. 248), it cannot justify ordering measures of reparation for the effects these proceedings had on the applicants. It therefore denies the measures being requested to strike the victims’ names from public criminal records and the registries of disqualifications of the victims, as requested by the representatives. 256. This Court would note, however, that Mr. Marcial, who was acquitted by the second appeals court as ordered by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on March 20, 1995, had his rights restored in 1995 and received his retirement pension until the time of his death in 2010.222 257. With respect to the measure of public recognition of responsibility, this Court deems that it is not necessary to order the measure requested by the representatives, as the delivery and publication of this judgment will, per se, be sufficient, appropriate measures. D. Guarantees of non-recurrence D.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 221 Cfr. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, par. 79 and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 261. 222 Cfr. Ruling No. 02/95 “C,” May 17, 1995, by the General Personnel Department of the Air Force, and a June, 25, 2013 communication from the Financial Assistance Bureau for Payment of Military Withdrawals and Pensions, which reports to the Ministry of Defense (evidence file, folios 12058, 12059 and 14945).