212. Additionally, the Court observes that, in this judgment, it declared that the right to personal integrity of 63 of the victims’ next of kin had been violated owing to their feelings of pain, anguish and uncertainty as a result of the lack of opportune medical care for their next of kin (supra para. 192). Consequently, the Court establishes the State’s obligation to provide, free of charge and immediately, adequately, comprehensively and effectively, through its specialized health institutions, psychological or psychiatric treatment for the victims’ next of kin who request this, following their informed consent, and including the free supply of any medication they may eventually require, taking into consideration the needs of each of them. Also, the respective treatments must be provided, insofar as possible, in the centers nearest to their places of residence for all the time necessary. The victims who request this measure of reparation, or their legal representatives, have six months from notification of this judgment to advise the State of their intention to receive psychological or psychiatric care. 213. The Court recalls the need for the State to act with special promptness to comply with the measures ordered in the preceding paragraphs, because the preservation of the health, personal integrity and life of the victims in this case depends on compliance with them. The State must confirm to the Court that it is complying with the measures indicated in the preceding paragraphs on a permanent basis. B.2 Measures of satisfaction B.2.1. Public act to acknowledge international responsibility B.2.1.1. Argumentos of the Commission and of the parties 214. The representatives asked the Court to order Guatemala to organize a public act at which the State would acknowledge its international responsibility for the human rights violations for which it had been sentenced, and at which it would make a public apology to make amends to the victims. In particular, the representatives asked that the most senior State authorities attend the act. Lastly, they asked that, in order to organize such an act, the State should be required to reach an agreement with the victims or their representatives regarding its characteristics, and that the Court order that the event be broadcast by radio and television. Neither the State nor the Commission referred to this request. B.2.1.2. Considerations of the Court 215. The Court finds it necessary that the State organize a public act to acknowledge its international responsibility for the facts of this case to make amends to the victims. During this act it must refer to the human rights violations declared in this judgment. Also, the act must take place during a public ceremony in the presence of senior State officials and the victims. The State and the victims and/or their representatives must reach ageement on the method of complying with this public act, as well as on its characteistics, such as the date and place.248 B.2.2. Publication and dissemination of the judgment B.2.2.1. Argumentos of the Commission and of the parties 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 Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 380. 248 72