60 the State organize an act during which its most senior authorities would make a public apology. The State argued that the Court had not ordered a public act of apology in the case of Aguado Alfaro (Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru of November 24, 2006), which concerned a collective dismissal; thus, with greater justification, it was not appropriate to organize an act in this case in which the presumed victim is a single individual. 204. In this specific case, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and its publication in different media are sufficient and adequate measures of satisfaction to remedy the violations against the victim and to comply with the purpose indicated by the representatives. 205. Regarding the measures of rehabilitation requested, the representatives asked that the State guarantee permanent medical and psychological treatment, free of charge, for the victim and his family. During the hearing and in their final written arguments, the representatives indicated – reiterating the opinion of expert witness Carlos Jibaja Zárate – that the conditions of his dismissal and the violation of his human rights, as well as the impossibility of obtaining justice to date, have been significant sources of stress, anxiety and worry that, over the years, have affected Mr. Lagos del Campo’s health. They indicated that, currently, Mr. Lagos del Campo’s health is not good, owing to his age but, above all, since his hemorrhagic stroke. The State argued that there was no causal nexus between the acts or omissions attributed to the State and the family situation. The allegation that Mr. Lagos del Campo had experienced stigmatization had no basis in the facts, and had not been revealed in specific circumstances. It also indicated that, in other cases relating to dismissals, medical and psychological treatment had not been granted. Despite this, in Peru, people living in poverty received free medical and psychological care. Lastly, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that, in relation to the deterioration in Mr. Lagos del Campo’s health, his situation following the stroke had not been proved or the existence of a diagnosis by a neurologist that could prove, scientifically, that the alleged episode of the stroke was due to this case. 206. In the instant case, the Court notes that, although there is a causal nexus between the facts of the case and the problems suffered by Mr. Lagos, especially the psychological effects, it considers that, in response to the representatives’ request and based on the time that has elapsed, in this case it is not in order to require the State to provide adequate treatment, and that this item may be considered under the heading of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Regarding the physical harm, the Court does not find that a causal nexus with the violations declared has been proved. 207. In relation to guarantees of non-repetition, the Commission requested the adoption of measures of non-repetition to guarantee that workers’ representatives and union leaders may enjoy their right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the standards established in the Merits Report, and also the adoption of measures to ensure that the laws and their interpretation by the domestic courts are consistent with the principles established by international human rights law with respect to freedom of expression in labor-related contexts. The representatives also asked the Court to order the State to ensure that workers’ representatives and union leaders may enjoy their right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the standards established in the Merits Report, and to adopt measures to ensure that the laws and their interpretation by the domestic courts are consistent with the principles established by international human rights law with respect to freedom of expression in labor-related contexts. In particular, the representatives referred to the Commission’s considerations in its Merits Report with regard to Legislative Decree 24514; specifically, that the decree was vague and imprecise and allegedly failed to comply with Article 2 of the Convention. The State argued that its right to defend itself had been contravened because it had not had the real possibility of knowing the specific type of measure it was required to adopt, since the Commission had not indicated the specific measures that the State should implement.