216. The representatives asked that the State publish, at least, the sections on the context and summary of the proven facts, together with the operative paragraphs of the judgment, in the official gazette and in at least two national newspapers. They also asked that this publication be made on the websites of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance and of the IGSS, and in the different Comprehensive Care Units (UAI), and maintained until the judgment had been fully executed. The representatives also argued that, owing to the stigmatization associated with HIV/AIDS, prior to publication, the State must consult the victims regarding whether they wished their name to be included in this publication or if, to the contrary, they would like it to be excluded. Neither the State nor the Commission referred to this request. B.2.2.2. Considerations of the Court 217. International case law has established that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.249 Nevertheless, the Court finds it pertinent to order, as it has in other cases,250 that the State make the following publications within six months of notification of this judgment: (i) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette and in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, in an appropriate and legible letter size, and (ii) this judgment in its entirety, available for at least one year on the official websites of the Ministry of Public Health and of the Guatemalan Social Security Institute, in a way that the public can access from the home page of these websites. 218. The victims must advise, within three months of notification of this judgment, whether they wish their names to be included in the publications indicated in the preceding paragraph. The State must advise the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one year time frame for presenting its first report ordered in the operative paragraphs of this judgment. B.2.3. Scholarships B.2.3.1. Argumentos of the Commission and of the parties 219. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to grant a scholarship to the victims who so wish, which should cover all the expenses until they have completed their studies. Neither the State nor the Commission referred to this request. B.2.3.2. Considerations of the Court 220. The Court has considered it appropriate to order as a measure of satisfaction that the State grant scholarships in public establishments to those victims whose personal development has suffered as a result of human rights violations. 251 Based on the financial situation of the victims and their next of kin, the Court finds it opportune to order the State Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 474. 249 Cf., inter alia, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 383. 250 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 257, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 427. 251 73