265. The Commission considered María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval and “her next of kin” as victims of the violations declared in its merits report. In particular, it indicated as victims of the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, her children Luz de María Juárez Chinchilla, Luis Mariano Juárez Chinchilla, Marta María Gantenbein Chinchilla de Aguilar, another daughter whose name was not provided, and “the mother of Mrs. Chinchilla.” For their part, the representatives forwarded a power of representation signed by the three named children, who were identified as victims and injured party in their brief, without making any reference to a fourth daughter or to the mother of Mrs. Chinchilla. 266. The State argued that, in the event that the Court should order it to pay compensation, said amount should be paid to the next of kin of Mr. Balsells Conde ─ who was the victim of the homicide committed by Mrs. Chinchilla─, and to “whom she never offered reparation in the civil courts.” The representatives and the Commission did not refer to this argument by the State. 267. The Court points out that reparation for damages derives from the State’s failure to fulfill its international obligations mentioned previously, and that this has no causal nexus whatsoever with the homicide mentioned by the State; therefore, the latter’s request in that regard is manifestly inadmissible. 268. The Court considers Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval as the “injured party” and, as the victim of the violations declared in the merits, she will be considered as the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court, without prejudice to those that may correspond to her children, as her heirs. 269. The provisions of this Judgment do not apply to those relatives of Mrs. Chinchilla who were not petitioners, who were not represented in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, or who have not been included as victims or injured party in this Judgment. However, this does not preclude any actions that they might initiate at the domestic level in relation to the facts of this case, if appropriate. On that assumption, the Court will not issue any ruling in this regard and will not consider their situation in the context of monitoring compliance with this Judgment. B. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition B.1 Publication of the judgment 270. International case law has repeatedly established that the Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.366 However, as it has done in other cases,367 the Court deems it pertinent to order the State to publish, within six months of notification of this Judgment: a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette and in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and b) this Judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official web site of the State. Cf. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 311. 366 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79 and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 312. 367 85