159. Moreover, with the aim of raising awareness in order to prevent the recurrence of harmful acts like the crime in this case, the Court orders the State to publicize this event through open, national television media and on the social media of an official body of the state of Pará. 228 D.3 Memorials 160. It has been requested in this case that the State be ordered to name two plazas after Gabriel Sales Pimenta and create a public memorial to value, protect, and preserve the activism of human rights defenders in Brazil, including Gabriel Sales Pimenta (supra para. 154). 161. This Court holds that memorials help prevent the repetition of harmful acts and keep the memory of victims alive. 229 Furthermore, the Court agrees with the expert opinion in this case 230 that these measures serve to “preserve and celebrate” the work of human rights defenders and that they also have the potential to educate people about the importance of that work. In this case, because of the context of violence and impunity related to land struggles in Brazil, memorials also have a role to play in raising awareness in society as a whole about this situation. 162. Accordingly, the Court orders the State to do the following within one year: (1) name a plaza in the municipality of Marabá in the state of Pará after Gabriel Sales Pimenta. In a visible location within that plaza, a bronze plaque shall be placed with the full name of Gabriel Sales Pimenta and a brief description of his life. The brief biographical description shall be written with the prior input and agreement of the victims and/or their representatives, and (2) create a public memorial in the city of Juiz de Fora, with the consent of Gabriel Sales Pimenta's family, to value, protect, and preserve the activism of human rights defenders in Brazil, including that of Gabriel Sales Pimenta. 163. In the event that the parties do not come to an agreement on the content and length of the biographical descriptions on the plaques, the Court shall write them in accordance with the facts proven in this judgment. D.4 Other measures of satisfaction requested 164. The Court considers this judgment, as well as the other measures ordered, to be sufficient and appropriate for remedying the violations suffered by the victims. It therefore does not consider it necessary to order the additional measures of satisfaction requested by the representatives. 231 165. The Court notes that the measures of satisfaction first requested by the representatives in their final written arguments 232 cannot be admitted as they were untimely. Accordingly, the Court will not rule on them. E. Guarantees of non-repetition See, for example, Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 445, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 173. 228 Cf. Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 273. 229 230 Cf. Expert opinion of Laurel E. Fletcher on March 4, 2022 (evidence file, folio 7342). The other measures requested (supra para. 154) were: (i) name a plaza in the municipality of Juiz de Fora in the state of Minas Gerais after Gabriel Sales Pimenta; (ii) place a bust of Gabriel Sales Pimenta in each of the two plazas to be named after Gabriel Sales Pimenta, in Juiz de Fora and Marabá; (iii) change the name of M.C.N. municipal school to Gabriel Sales Pimenta and refrain from naming new public places after M.C.N. 231 232 Those measures were: (i) erect in the city of Marabá a monument to Gabriel Sales Pimenta “and other human rights defenders,” and (ii) make a film or documentary on the “life and struggle” of Gabriel Sales Pimenta. 41