Court. Consequently, the Court will only refer to the arguments of the parties and the Commission that relate to Mr. Jenkins, the person who has been declared the victim in this case. B. Measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction b.1 Measures of rehabilitation 127. The Commission asked that the State provide physical and mental health care for the victim in this case, free of charge, immediately and for as long as necessary, provided that he requests this and as agreed with him. 128. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay for the necessary mental health care in an institution or by a doctor determined by Mr. Jenkins owing to the emotional suffering he endured, revealed by the anxiety, anguish, uncertainty, expectation and frustration that judicial proceedings such as those examined in this case produce in any innocent person. 129. The State clarified that the public health system is available to Mr. Jenkins, that it provides care for all the physical and mental ailments he could suffer from, and that he could find the appropriate professional health care within this system. 130. Based on the violations declared in this judgment, the Court establishes the State’s obligation to provide, free of charge and immediately, the psychological treatment required by Mr. Jenkins, following his informed consent and for as long as necessary, including the free provision of medicines. b.2 Measures of satisfaction (i) Publication of the judgment 131. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish the full text of the judgment in the Official Gazette, preceded by a publication acknowledging its responsibility, as a public apology. 132. The State indicated that the delivery and the dissemination of the judgment using diverse media would be a sufficient and adequate measure of reparation. 133. The Commission did not comment on this request. 134. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases,126 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation and in the Official Gazette in an appropriate and legible font, and (b) this judgment in its entirety, available for at least one year, on an official website of the State. The State must advise this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year time frame to present its first report established in the fourteenth operative paragraph of this judgment. Cf., inter alia, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 207; Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 197; Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 300; Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 299, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 68. 126 32