appropriate, transportation and other expenses that are directly related and strictly necessary. B.2) Measures of satisfaction: publication of the Judgment Arguments of the parties 327. Representative Molina requested “the publication of the pertinent parts of the judgment in a newspaper with widespread national circulation, in its printed version, and the full text of the judgment online, as well as the summary,” and “that the State create a summary of the judgment in simple terms, approved by the Court, so that the general public may understand what this case entailed, and that this version also be published in a national newspaper.” 328. Representative May asked the Court to “declare that the State must publish, once, within six months of notification of this Judgment, the operative paragraphs of this Judgment in the Official Gazette and in two other newspapers with widespread circulation.” Considerations of the Court 329. The Court orders that State publish, within six months Judgment: (a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by Official Gazette; (b) the official summary of this Judgment prepared newspaper with widespread national circulation, and (c) the full available for one year on an official web site of the Judiciary. of notification of this the Court, once, in the by the Court, once, in a text of the Judgment, B.3) Guarantees of non-repetition B.3.1) State measures that do not prevent the practice of IVF Arguments of the Commission and claims of the parties 330. The Commission recommended that the State “lift the ban on in vitro fertilization in the country through the corresponding legal procedures” and “ensure that, once the ban is lifted, the regulation of the practice of in vitro fertilization is compatible with the State’s obligation with regard to the rights recognized in Articles 11(2), 17(2) and 24, [in order that] couples that need and want the treatment have access to the technique of in vitro fertilization so that the treatment can serve its purpose.” 331. Representative Molina asked the Court to order the State to approve “a formal and substantive law that weighed the rights to life and the rights [violated] in this case.” In this regard, he proposed the “prohibition to discard embryos arbitrarily and to sell them; to allow the implanting of no more than three embryos to avoid multiple pregnancies, and to allow the freezing of eggs and not of embryos, as a measure of embryo protection.” He stressed “the importance of permitting the law to adjust to the new methods of assisted reproduction that science discovers in a way that maintains a balance between rights.” He asked the Court to “order the State to regulate and to establish all necessary mechanisms to offer the population existing and future assisted reproduction methods in order to assist couples with infertility problems.” 332. Representative May asked that the State “adopt all legal, administrative or other measures to be able to provide full access progressively to IVF treatment within the social security system to sterile or infertile persons who are contributors of the Costa Rican Social