58 232. The Inter-American Commission stated that “satisfaction can be identified with measures of a symbolic or exemplary nature that have an impact on the direct victims but also an impact on their community and social environment” and asked the Court that, given “the nature of the facts of the instant case,” it order the publication of the judgment in a national newspaper. 233. The representatives did not make either a request or an observation on this measure of reparation. 234. The State indicated that “reparation as a measure of satisfaction was not in order” either, because no harmful act had existed against the victim, and it requested the Court to reject the Inter-American Commission's claims for reparation. 235. As the Court has ordered in other cases,76 as a measure of satisfaction, the State must publish once in the official gazette and in another daily newspaper with widespread circulation, paragraphs 77 to 133 of this judgment, without the footnotes, and its operative paragraphs. The State must make these publications within six months of notification of this judgment. iii) Public acknowledgement of State responsibility 236. Lastly, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court, based on the same grounds as the preceding measure of reparation, to order the State to publicly acknowledge the State's responsibility for the violations that had occurred. 237. The representatives did not make either a request or an observation on this measure of reparation. 238. The State indicated that satisfaction in the form of the acknowledgement of a violation, an expression of regret, a formal apology or any other measure of this nature was not in order and requested the Court to reject the Inter-American Commission's claims for reparation. 239. The Inter-American Court considers that the measure usually, but not exclusively, requested by the Inter-American Commission is ordered in order to repair violations to the rights to life, integrity and personal liberty. The Court considers that this measure is not necessary to repair the violation found in the instant case. The judgment constitutes per se a measure of reparation. C) COSTS AND EXPENSES 240. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.77 241. The Inter-American Commission indicated that Mr. Castañeda Gutman, “through his representatives [...] is in a better position to quantify his claims and authenticate his expenses” and asked the Court to order the payment of the legal costs and expenses 76 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, operative paragraph 5(d); Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 75, para. 192; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 249. 77 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 46, para. 79; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 184; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 257.