that was created by the Program of Reparation for Victims. It emphasized that the family members of Mr. Garzón Guzmán informed the Ombudsman that they considered the psychological support was extemporaneous and that they had decided not to accede to the Law of Victims because it would mean renouncing their international claims. Nevertheless, the State informed that it had maintained contact with the family members of Mr. Garzón Guzmán and remitted a report on the psychological attention received by Iván Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán and Luis Alberto Garzón Guzmán. It also indicated that it had provided medical and psychological attention to the brothers of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, who were not identified as victims by the Commission. 114. The Court considers, as it has in other cases, 101 that regardless of the State’s actions, it is necessary to order a measure of reparation directed at providing adequate attention to the psychological and psychiatric ailments of the family members of Mr. Garzón Guzmán (supra paras. 90-94). Consequently, the Court finds that the State must provide without charge, through its specialized health institutions, immediately, adequately and effectively the psychological and psychiatric treatment that the victims require, with prior informed consent and for the time necessary, including the free provision of medications that eventually may be required, bearing in mind the ailments of each beneficiary. The respective treatments must also be provided, to the extent possible, in places chosen by the victims. The victims have six months, from the notification of this Judgment, to require that the State provide the treatment.102 In providing the psychological and/or psychiatric treatment, the specific circumstances and needs of each victim must be taken into account, as agreed by each one and following an individual evaluation. The State will have a period of three months, from the reception of such request, to effectively render the psychological and/or psychiatric treatment requested. D. Measures of satisfaction D.1 Publication and dissemination of this Judgment 115. The representative requested that the State publicize the Judgment of the Court. 116. The State did not specifically refer to this matter. 117. The Court considers, as it has in other cases, 103 that the State must publish, with six months of the notification of this Judgment: a) the Court’s official summary of this Judgment, once in the Official Gazette, in an adequate and legible font; b) the Court’s official summary of this Judgment, once in a newspaper of wide national circulation, in an adequate and legible font and c) the present Judgment, in its entirety, available for one year on an official Web site of the national government. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has made each of the publications ordered, notwithstanding the period of one year to submit its first report ordered in Operative Paragraph 11 of this Judgment. 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 Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 236. 101 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 253 and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 237. 102 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 227 and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 177. 103 27