169. The Court orders, as it has in other cases, 147 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 in a legible and appropriate font size; (b) the Court’s official summary of the judgment, once, in a media outlet with broad national circulation in a legible and appropriate font size; and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year on the homepage of an official website accessible to the public. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has issued each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year timeframe it has to present its first report as indicated in operative paragraph 12 of this judgment. C. Measure of rehabilitation 170. The representatives requested as a measure of rehabilitation that “free medical care” be provided to Mr. Cortez and that he be provided “private whole life insurance for the rest of his life.” 148 171. The State argued that the measure of rehabilitation demanded should not be granted because the representatives had not proven specific harm to Mr. Cortez’s health necessitating medical care and full private medical insurance for the rest of his life as a consequence of the facts of this case. 172. The Court has found that the personal integrity of Mr. Cortez was harmed, including through cruel and inhuman treatment (supra paras. 154, 155, and 157). There is also the expert evidence indicating that the victim shows symptoms of post-traumatic stress (supra para. 153). Accordingly, as it has done in other cases, 149 this Court finds it necessary to order a measure of reparation to provide appropriate treatment for psychological and/or psychiatric problems. The amount for this is specified below, together with the relevant non-pecuniary damage suffered (infra para. 184). D. Other measures requested 173. The Commission requested “measures of non-repetition that are necessary to: (i) ensure that both the applicable law and the respective practices of preventive detention be made compatible with the standards established in the Merits Report” and (ii) “ensure that military criminal justice not be applied to civilians under any circumstances, including for retired military members.” 174. The representatives asked the Court to order: (a) the investigation and punishment of the public officials responsible—through action or omission—for Mr. Cortez’s unlawful detention and for the violation of his right to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, and property, as well as the “remov[al] of all de facto and de jure obstacles to the due investigation of the facts;” (b) as a measure of satisfaction, a public act acknowledging international responsibility, in which “public apologies are made;” and (c) as a guarantee of This is required even in the absence of an explicit request, as occurred in this case (cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 102 and footnote 65; Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 108; and Case of Huacón Baidal et al. v. Ecuador. Judgment of October 4, 2022. Series C No. 466, para. 56). Without prejudice to the indicated absence of an explicit request, it is noted that the Commission requested, in general terms, the adoption of measures of satisfaction. 148 The Commission did not expressly request measures of rehabilitation, though it did request that the State be ordered to take measures “to comprehensively remedy the human rights violations” including the “non-pecuniary aspects.” 149 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 42 and 45, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 212. 147 37