77 Miraval, María Omeara Miraval (deceased), Elva María Solano de Álvarez, Judith Álvarez Solano, Miguel Ángel Álvarez Solano, Héctor Manuel Álvarez Solano, Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano, Juan Carlos Álvarez Solano , Ana Edith Álvarez de García, Fabiola Álvarez Solano, Elba Katherine Omeara Álvarez, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Álvarez, and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez (supra para. 281). 299. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that in the expert opinion given before this Court on psychosocial and moral harm caused to the next of kin, and particularly, "the collective damage caused" to the family unit, rendered by Ángela Cristina Tapias Saldaña and Yeiny Carolina Torres Bocachica, It is established that "the psychosocial damage suffered by the victims’ families is profound and evident," and that "the emotional suffering that persists after 23 years due to the absence of truth and justice is evident," and it was also noted that the victims suffered psychological harm at an individual level. The Court understands that there was indeed a psychological impact caused to each of the members of the three groups of affected family members. Therefore, the Court considers it relevant to order a reparation that provides adequate attention to the psychological suffering of the victims of the violations established in this judgment.315 300. The Court orders the State to provide, free of charge, at no cost or charge, as a priority, appropriate psychological treatment to victims who require it, following their consent. Said expression of consent must be expressed within a period of six months from the notification of this judgment. As long as it is appropriate to the orders, this Court considers, as it has done in other cases,316 that the State may grant said treatment through the national health services, including through the PAPSIVI. When providing psychological treatment, the particular circumstances and needs of each victim must also be considered, so that they are offered collective, family and individual treatment, according to agreement with each one of them and after an individual evaluation. Similarly, the respective psychiatric or psychological treatments must be provided for as long as necessary, and as far as possible in the centers closest to the victims’ places of residence and at a location accessible to them.317 D. Measures of satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the judgment and a public act of acknowledgement 301. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish, within six months after the date of notification of the judgment, in the Official Gazette the relevant parts of the judgment, “including the names of each chapter and the section –without the footnotes-, as well as the operative paragraphs of this judgment […] in another newspaper with wide national circulation, the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court.” They also required that the publication be immediately available on the official website of the President of the Republic, the Government of the Department of Cesar, and the Municipal Mayor's Offices of Aguachica and San Martín. They also requested that a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility be carried out, within one year of the publication of the judgment, in which the memory of each of the victims in the case and their relatives are honored. They required that it be held in the San Roque Park in the municipality of Aguachica (Cesar) and have the widest possible dissemination and the corresponding costs be covered. They requested that the Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 42 and 45, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 291. 316 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 340, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 252. 317 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra, para. 278, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 155. 315