the representatives requested as a measure of reparation, the “publication [of] the decision that the Court adopts in the present case.” The State did not address this request specifically. 125. As it has ordered on other occasions, in light of the facts and human rights violations declared in this Judgment, the Court considers that the State must publish, once, the present Judgment, paragraphs 1 to 18, 25 to 38, 45 to 79, 82 to 84, 89, 103, 105, 106, 108, 110 to 125, 128, 131 to 133, 135 to 137, 140, 143 to 145, and 153, including the respective titles and subtitles of each chapter, without the corresponding footnotes, and including the operative paragraphs hereto. The State must also publish the official summary issued by the Court in a newspaper with widespread national circulation. In addition, as has been ordered in the past by the Court, this Judgment must be published in its entirety on an appropriate web site, and it must remain available for, at least, one year. To carry out the publications in the newspapers and newsletters, the Court sets a period of six and two months, respectively, from the notification of this Judgment. Moreover, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State must assure the dissemination of this Judgment within the police and prison authorities, as well as medical personnel charged with carrying for persons deprived of their liberty. C.2. Public apology and international responsibility public acknowledgment of 126. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to “carry out an act of acknowledgment of international responsibility[.]” The representative requested the Court to order the State to carry out “an act of public apology to the victim and the victim’s family, [and to] reproach the material and intellectual perpetrators of the events that occurred[.]” The State did not formulate specific arguments regarding this point. 127. The Court deems that, to repair the violations proven in the present case, the issuance and publication of the Judgment are sufficient, as well as the ordering of measures of a pecuniary nature (infra paras. 131, 132, 136 and 137). D. Compensatory damages D.1 Pecuniary damage 128. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of pecuniary damages, which encompasses the “loss or detriment to earnings of the victims, the expenses incurred based on the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal link with the facts of this case.”130 D.1.1 Arguments of the parties 130 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 12, para. 290, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, note 91. 48