378. The representatives requested that the Brazilian State organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility during which the Armed Forces should make an official apology for the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog. The State should acknowledge responsibility for acts and omissions, especially owing to the denial of justice. They considered that senior representatives of the public powers and the Armed Forces should take part in the act, and that it should be prepared and organized with the participation of the victims. 379. The State argued that the State’s responsibility for the arbitrary detention, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog had been acknowledged by the delivery of the death certificate during a ceremony of the Amnesty Caravan in 2013. It indicated that the request for an apology from the Armed Forces was not possible because this referred to facts prior to 1998 and, therefore, before the State had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. 380. The Court finds it necessary that the State organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility for the facts of this case in honor of the memory of Vladimir Herzog and to apologize for the failure to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for his torture and death. During this act, mention should be made of the human rights violations declared in this judgment. Also, it should take place in a public ceremony in the presence of senior officials of the State and the Armed Forces, and the victims. The State and the victims and/or their representatives must agree on how to comply with this public act of acknowledgment, and also on the details, such as the date and place. 406 ii) Publication of the judgment 381. The representatives asked that the State publish the sections of the judgment that refer to the proven facts, the analysis of the violations of the American Convention, and the operative paragraphs in two national newspapers. 382. The State acknowledged the relevance of the publication of the Court’s judgments and mentioned that it keeps the judgments delivered in the cases of Sétimo Garibaldi and Gomes Lund et al. on the website of the Special Secretariat for Human Rights. The State undertook to publish this judgment in the same terms as those two cases. In addition, regarding the publication in national newspapers, the State referred to the high cost of such publications and proposed that, instead of publishing the judgment in national newspapers, the Court order its publication on official websites and its dissemination by the social networks of government agencies. The State considered that this proposal would ensure that the judgment had widespread impact. 383. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases, 407 that the State should publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the entire judgment, once, in the Official Gazette, in a legible and appropriate font size; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) the entire judgment and its summary, available for at least one year, on the official websites of the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Citizenship, and the Brazilian Army, in a manner accessible to the public, and its dissemination by social networks, as follows: the Twitter and Facebook pages of the Special Secretariat for Human Rights and Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 353 and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 336. 406 407 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, para. 79, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru, para. 211. 96