150. The State asserted that the alleged victims already have access to free health care near where they live that meets their specific needs, as required by domestic law. It noted that the representatives did not indicate that the alleged victims have any difficulties or have sought care and that, in fact, during the stage of compliance with the Commission's recommendations, the representatives reported that the alleged victims did not have specific needs. 151. The Court observes that in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives did not make any mention of the victims needing a measure of rehabilitation. However, as the Commission requested measures of rehabilitation, and those family members identified as victims experienced or are experiencing additional suffering due to the impunity caused by the State’s acts and omissions in its response to the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta (supra paras. 126–133), the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to provide free psychological and/or psychiatric treatment immediately, appropriately, and effectively through its specialized institutions to any of Mr. Sales Pimenta’s brothers named in this judgment who desire it. In addition, the treatments shall be provided, to the extent possible, at locations that are closest to their places of residence and for the length of time necessary, and they shall include the provision of any necessary medications. In the provision of treatments, the particular circumstances and needs of each victim shall be taken into consideration, as well as the desires of the victim and the findings of an initial evaluation. 222 152. The beneficiaries have a period of six months from the notification of this judgment to inform the State of their intention to receive psychological and/or psychiatric treatment. 223 If they do not do so, the State will be under no obligation to comply with this measure of rehabilitation. The State, for its part, shall have a maximum of six months from its receipt of any such request to diligently provide the care requested. D. Measures of satisfaction 153. The Commission requested measures of satisfaction for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused. 154. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to take the following measures: (i) hold a public event to acknowledge international responsibility and issue a public apology—noting the State's international responsibility for actions as well as for inaction, especially for the denial of justice—organized with the participation of the victims and including the presence of high-level public officials and civil society leaders involved in combating violence, and publicize the event through the national media to ensure that victims who cannot travel to it have the opportunity to participate; (ii) publish the chapters of this judgment that include the facts, the merits, and the operative paragraphs in a national newspaper and the full text of the judgment on the website of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judiciary; (iii) name two plazas after Gabriel Sales Pimenta—one in the municipality of Marabá in the state of Pará and the other in Juiz de Fora in the state of Minas Gerais—and place busts of Gabriel Sales Pimenta with a bronze plaque detailing his life in each of them; (iv) change the name of M.C.N. municipal school to Gabriel Sales Pimenta, place a bronze plaque on the front of the school explaining the change and detailing the life of Mr. Sales Pimenta, and refrain from naming any new public places after M.C.N.; and (v) build a public memorial in the city of Juiz de Fora, with the consent of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family, in which the activism of Brazilian human rights defenders such as Gabriel Sales Pimenta is valued, protected, and preserved. Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 209, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 227. 222 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 253, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 229. 223 39