-57detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero, and of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Arturo Longton Guerrero and Sebastián Cox Urrejola who, as victims of the said violations, are eligible for the reparations established by the Court. B) PECUNIARY DAMAGE 155. In the instant case, the victims’ representative did not make any statement or request regarding possible pecuniary damage, and the Court has confirmed that the violations declared and the evidence provided did not result in damage of this type that would require reparations to be ordered. C) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 156. The Court considers that this judgment constitutes, per se, a significant and important form of reparation and moral satisfaction for the victims.114 However, in order to repair the non-pecuniary damage in this case, the Court will determine those measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repletion that are not of a pecuniary nature, but have public repercussions.115 Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition C.1) Request for State-held information 157. Regarding the argument that Chile submitted to the Court, according to which there is no longer any interest in providing the information, since the “Río Cóndor” Project was not implemented, it should be indicated that the social control sought through access to State-held information and the nature of the information requested are sufficient motives for responding to the request for information, without requiring the applicant to prove a specific interest or a direct involvement. 158. Therefore, since in this case the State has not provided part of the requested information and has not issued a justified decision regarding the request for information, the Court considers that the State, through the corresponding entity, should provide the information requested by the victims, if appropriate, or adopt a justified decision in this regard. 159. If the State considers that it was not the Foreign Investment Committee’s responsibility to obtain part of the information requested by the victims in this case, it should provided a justified explanation of why it did not provide the information. C.2) Publication of the pertinent parts of this judgment 160. As ordered in other cases as a measure of satisfaction,116 the State must publish once in the official gazette and in another newspaper with extensive national circulation, 114 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 109, para. 131; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 2, para. 387; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 189. 115 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 72, para. 249; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 229; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 72, para. 208. 116 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 109, para. 151; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 249; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 194.