123. International case law and, in particular, the case law of the Court have consistently established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.107 However, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, in view of the harm caused to Lysias Fleury and the consequences of an immaterial or non-pecuniary nature resulting from the violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, 22 and 25 of the American Convention declared to the detriment of the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish the following measures. 1. Measures of satisfaction 124. The Commission did not ask the Court to order any measure of satisfaction. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the human rights violations in this case and to make a “public apology” in a national newspaper. 125. In this case, as it has in others,108 the Court finds it sufficient that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and c) the entire judgment, available for one year, on an official website. 2. Guarantees of Non-Repetition 126. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to: a) “Adopt the necessary measures to […] prevent and punish illegal and arbitrary detention”; b) “Ensure the effective prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in domestic law”; c) Take any measures that “may be necessary to prevent future violations such as those committed against Mr. Fleury, including training for members of the Haitian security forces on the international standards concerning the use of force and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and arbitrary arrest and detention; d) Undertake the “relevant reform of its investigation and prosecution proceedings for human rights violations committed by members of the Haitian security forces to ensure that they are exhaustive, prompt and impartial”; e) “Review and strengthen its accountability mechanisms, such as the HNP General Inspectorate and the Public Prosecution Service, and improve coordination between the State’s judicial officials and its Judiciary to ensure effective and independent investigations of human rights abuses committed by members of the Haitian security forces, and f) “Adopt, as a matter of priority, a policy to protect and prevent violence against human rights defenders and adopt a public policy to combat impunity for human rights violations against human rights defenders.” 107 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs, Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 243. 108 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, Operative paragraph 5(d), and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9; para. 252. 33