44 i) Obligation to publish the judgment 154. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to publish this judgment in a national newspaper as a measure of satisfaction for the victims. 155. The representatives, in their final arguments brief, asked that, as a form of symbolic reparation, the State publish the judgment in a national daily newspaper with widespread circulation. 156. The State did not submit additional arguments in this regard. 157. As the Court has ordered in other cases,139 the State must publish once in the official gazette, in another national newspaper with widespread circulation, and in a newspaper with extensive circulation in the state of Paraná, the cover page, Chapters I, VI and VII, without the footnotes, and the operative paragraphs of this judgment, as a measure of satisfaction In addition, as the Court has ordered on previous occasions,140 this judgment must be published in its entirety, for at least one year, on an appropriate official web site of the Federal State and of the state of Paraná, taking into account the characteristics of the publication that the Court has ordered. The publications in the newspapers and on the Internet must be made within six and two months, respectively, of notification of this judgment. ii) Public acknowledgement of international responsibility 158. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the violations that occurred and the damage caused. 159. The representatives, in their pleadings and motions brief, asked that an act should be held where the State publicly acknowledged its responsibility for the facts. In their final arguments brief, they added that the State should arrange a tribute (in memoriam) to Sétimo Garibaldi by inaugurating a public school in Querência do Norte with his name, in the presence of public authorities and his next of kin. 160. The State did not submit additional arguments in this regard. 161. The Court has ordered acts of public acknowledgement of international responsibility as a guarantee of non-repetition of the facts, generally although not exclusively, in order to repair violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty.141 In the instant case, the Court did not rule on the State’s responsibility for the violation of any of the said rights to the detriment of the victims. In this regard, the Court does not observe any relationship between the measure of reparation requested and the violation declared in this case based on errors and omissions in the Police Investigation. Furthermore, the Court considers that this judgment and the measures of reparation ordered constitute important and sufficient measures to repair the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection declared in the instant case. iii) Obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the murder of Sétimo Garibaldi 139 Cf. Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, operative paragraph 5(d); Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 239, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 199. 140 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 103, para. 195; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 239, and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 252. 141 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 10, para. 239, and Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 243.