psychiatric problems experienced by those individuals. The Court appreciates the State’s interinstitutional efforts to provide care to a large number of victims, but given the representatives’ request, the Court finds it appropriate in this case to designate a sum of money that the victims can use to obtain the medical and psychological care they need. Accordingly, the State shall give each of the following individuals: María Elena Toro Torres, Óscar de Jesús Tabares, María Bibiancy Tabares Toro, Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro, María Isabel Gallego Toro, and Jhon Fredy Tabares Giraldo USD 6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars). This amount shall not be conditional on prior or subsequent documentation of outlays for medical or psychological expenses. Also, the instructions set out below with regard to the delivery of funds shall be followed (infra paras. 178–183). The State shall immediately inform the Court once it has transferred all of the funds as ordered, irrespective of the one-year timeframe for submitting its first report ordered in operative paragraph 12 of this judgment. E. Measures of satisfaction 145. The Commission made a general request for appropriate reparation, including measures of satisfaction, for all the human rights violations. For this reason, only the specific requests of the representatives will be discussed here. E.1 Publication of the judgment 146. The representatives asked that the State be ordered to publish once in a legible font in the Official Gazette the important parts of this judgment, including the titles of the corresponding chapters and sections—without footnotes—as well as the operative section of the judgment, and to publish in another media outlet with broad national circulation the Court’s official summary of the judgment. This shall be done within six months of the date of notification of this judgment. The entire text of the judgment shall be published immediately on the official websites of the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Defense, for a period of one year. 147. The Court orders, as it has in other cases, 176 that the State publish within six months of the notification of this judgment, in a legible and appropriate font size: (a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette; (b) the Court’s official summary of the judgment, once, in a media outlet with broad national circulation; and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official website of the Ministry of Defense, accessible to the public from the homepage. The State shall inform the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year timeframe for presenting its first report established in operative paragraph 12 of this judgment. 148. In addition, within six months of the notification of this judgment, the State shall publicize the Court's judgment on the social media accounts of the Ministry of Defense. The State shall indicate in these publications that the Inter-American Court has issued a judgment in this case declaring Colombia internationally responsible, and it shall link directly to the full text of the judgment. This shall be done at least five times by the ministry, during working hours, and the publications shall remain published on its social media profiles. The State shall inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year timeframe for presenting its first report, established in operative paragraph 12 of this judgment. E.2 Public acknowledgment of international responsibility 149. The representatives asked that the State be ordered to carry out a public acknowledgment of responsibility within one year of the notification of this judgment and apologize to Óscar Iván Tabares Toro’s family members for his forced disappearance at the hands of the National Army and for the denial of justice they have had to endure for almost 24 years. They asked that the details and content of the act of acknowledgment be agreed upon in advance with the victim and representatives and carried out by high-level officials with the broadest possible publicity and involvement, in particular with television, radio, digital media, and the national press. Lastly, they stated that the exile of certain relatives of the victim should be taken into consideration. 176 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 169; and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 34