representatives did not mention Reyes Alpízar in their request. The Commission did not refer specifically to this measure. 316. The State reiterated its willingness, in the event that this Court should determine its international responsibility, to carry out an act of acknowledgement and public apology regarding the possible human rights violations against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, in order to eradicate the social perception of their guilt in relation to the facts under investigation. It also indicated that the format of the act of acknowledgement and public apology would be agreed with the petitioners and their representatives. 317. In addition, the representatives requested that a statement be addressed “to the Mexican State to promote the enactment of effective laws and practices to combat impunity in the face of the unlawful actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, its agents and assistants in the conduct of investigations and in the application of procedural protocols, especially where there is tampering with the chain of custody, fabrication of evidence or clues or manipulation of evidence or proof, with the aim of utilizing the institutions to allege false crimes.” 318. In response to this request for reparation, the State pointed out that “the Commission at no time mentioned the possible fabrication of the crime of aggravated homicide to the detriment of María de los Ángeles Tamés, and therefore this request goes beyond the scope of the present case. Moreover, the representatives of the alleged victims based this request for reparation on facts other than those in the factual framework established by the […] Commission in its Merits Report.” 319. The representatives also requested that “the necessary steps be taken to identify the perpetrators and the masterminds, prosecute and punish all officials responsible for the investigation, the fabrication of false accusations, the manipulation of witnesses, torture, the denial of access to adequate and effective legal remedies, as well as those responsible for obstructing the effective judicial protection of the State.” In this regard, the State affirmed that it was not responsible “for the alleged fabrication of false accusations, witness tampering, torture, denial of access to adequate and effective judicial remedies, or for obstructing the State’s effective judicial protection. Furthermore, it argued that “the petition is far removed from the issue at hand” and that “even if it were proven that there were omissions that resulted in violations of the American Convention, this does not imply the intention to make false accusations, tamper with witnesses, commit torture, deny access to adequate and effective judicial remedies, or obstruct the State’s effective judicial protection.” 320. With regard to the request for a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court considers that the measures of reparation ordered in this judgment are sufficient and therefore it does not find it appropriate to order said measure. As for the other measures requested, the Court finds that they do not have a causal nexus with the violations declared in this judgment, and therefore does not consider it appropriate to order them. G. Compensation 321. The Commission requested that the Court order “pecuniary compensation and measures of satisfaction, including compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused as a consequence of the declared violations, as well as rehabilitation measures with physical or mental health treatment for the victims in this case, and an investigation to establish the corresponding responsibilities.” The representatives requested “comprehensive reparation in the form of an indemnity for Daniel García, Reyes Alpízar and their families, taking into account consequential damages, loss of earnings, measures of restitution for contributions, and moral or non-pecuniary damage.” 322. In this regard, the representatives claimed: a) the payment of USD$150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) to Daniel García Rodríguez, for expenses incurred in the -79-