102 exhumed in 1990 (supra para. 66.7 and 66.8) and it must deliver their remains to their next of kin, for them to bury those remains in the appropriate manner at the place they choose. * * * 127. The characteristics of the facts in the instant case reveal that the armed forces and security agencies of the State were not prepared to face public order disturbances by applying means and methods that respect human rights. It is necessary to avoid by all means any repetition of the circumstances described. The State must adopt all necessary provision to this end, and specifically those for education and training of all members of its armed forces and its security agencies on principles and provisions of human rights protection and regarding the limits to which the use of weapons by law enforcement officials is subject, even in a state of emergency. The pretext of maintenance of public security cannot be invoked to violate the right to life. The State must, also, adjust operational plans regarding public disturbances to the requirements of respect and protection of those rights, adopting to this end, among other measures, those geared toward control of actions by all members of the security forces in the very field of action to avoid excess. Finally, the State must ensure that, if it is necessary to resort to physical means to face situations of disturbance of public order, the members of its armed forces and its security bodies will use only those means that are indispensable to control such situations in a rational and proportional manner,196 and respecting the rights to life and to humane treatment. * * * 128. Acknowledgment of responsibility by the State has been a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to effectiveness of the principles that inspire the American Convention.197 Nevertheless, the Court deems that for said recognition to have the full effect of reparation to the victims and to serve as a guarantee of non-recidivism of facts such as those in the instant case, the State must publish within a reasonable time, in the Official Gazette and in a daily newspaper with national circulation, at least once, chapter I, under the title Introduction of the Case, paragraph 1 subparagraphs a),b),c),d),e),f) and (a) and the operative paragraphs of chapter VII of the judgment on the merits; and paragraphs 66 to 66.16 of the instant Judgment. X LEGAL COSTS AND EXPENSES Arguments of the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin 129. The representatives of the victims and of the next of kin stated the following: 196 Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 24, paras. 68, 69 and 71. 197 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 118; El Caracazo Case, supra note 28, para. 43; and Benavides Cevallos Case. June 19, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 38, para. 57.