It is precisely through the actions of investigation, arrest, prosecution, and, in its case, conviction carried out by the State of those responsible for said violations that the victims and their next of kin will be in the condition to know the truth of the facts, which in itself constitutes a means of reparation.11 48. The Court observes that paragraph 440 of the Judgment refers to the criminal investigation that must be carried out by the State in relation to the facts known and decided on by the Inter-American Court in the present case. The Court considers that the compliance of said international obligation is different and compatible with the possible criminal investigations that could be carried out in Peru regarding the alleged crimes attributable to people that the State links to criminal acts. 49. With regard to the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, the State requested that the Court clarify if it was possible “to distinguish throughout the course of the act itself, a respectful and reflexive mention of the juridical condition of the victims at the time of the facts (whether they are being prosecuted or have been sentenced for crimes acknowledged in the criminal legislation in force at the time of the facts) or after the facts of May 6 through 9, 1992.” (supra para. 29(b)) This “in respect and memory of the victims of [Sendero Luminoso].” 50. A public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility is a reparation measure that the Inter-American Court usually orders in certain cases in which it has found there is a violation to the human rights enshrined in the American Convention. The facts regarding which the parties went on record and the Court issued its Judgment were those occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison and some subsequent ones directly related to the same, as that occurred with certain family members and the corresponding judicial actions, thus the reparation measure must be limited to the facts known of and decided on by the Tribunal. On the other hand, upon ordering this reparation measure the Tribunal took into account that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the facts occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison during the processing of the present case. Therefore, in the terms of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made before this Court, the State must now make said acknowledgment within its domestic jurisdiction. 51. Finally, with regard to the diffusion of the Judgment, the State indicated that this was the first time in which the Court asked Peru to broadcast on radio and television certain parts of the Judgment. The State asked the Court to consider the “cumulative” effect of the different forms of diffusion of the Judgment and the “contrary effect this could generate among the population […].” Likewise, Peru stated “it supports its consultation in the objective that the victims or their next of kin understand that it would be reasonable to limit the coverage hours of the broadcasting of the satisfaction measure in order to protect the higher interest of the child, who has already been exposed to high doses of violence through mass media.” Finally, the Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 7, paras. 174-177; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 90; and Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, paras. 75 and 165. 11 14