155. Subsequently, in their final written arguments, the representatives stated that some of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family members had asked that in the city of Marabá in the state of Pará a monument be erected to Gabriel Sales Pimenta “and other human rights defenders” and that a film or documentary be made on the “life and struggle” of Gabriel Sales Pimenta. 156. The State argued that implementation of the requested measures would be “excessively intrusive.” It also noted that because it had committed no human rights violations related to the facts of this case, there was no reason for the Court to order the measures requested. D.1 Publication of the judgment 157. As it has done in other cases, 224 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible and appropriate font size: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette of Brazil and the official gazette of the state of Pará; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with broad circulation; and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for at least one year, on an official website of the State, in a manner accessible to the public from a banner on the home page of the websites of the federal government, the Public Prosecutor's Office, and the judiciary of the state of Pará. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has issued each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year timeframe to present its first report as indicated in operative paragraph 19 of this judgment. D.2 Public event acknowledging international responsibility 158. In order to make reparation for the harm caused to the victims and to prevent such acts from recurring, especially given the chilling effect that can result from the murder of one human rights defender and from impunity for that crime, the Court deems it necessary to order the State to carry out a public event acknowledging international responsibility for the events of this case, within a year of the notification of this judgment. This event shall make reference to the human rights violations declared in paragraphs 119 and 120 of this judgment. It shall “expressly [acknowledge] the work of human rights defenders, and explicitly [condemn] any type of attacks or crimes committed against them,” 225 and also underscore the obligation of enhanced due diligence for all government authorities charged with preventing, investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for threatening, harassing, or murdering human rights defenders. This event shall consist of a public ceremony in the presence of the victims identified in this judgment, if they so desire, as well as high-level officials of the state of Pará and the federal government. The local and federal governments will decide who will be responsible for carrying out this task. Furthermore, the State shall invite civil society organizations involved in the fight against agrarian violence in Brazil. 226 The State shall consult with the victims and/or their representatives ahead of time to agree upon the date, location, and modalities of the event. 227 Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296, para. 152, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 168. 224 225 Cf. Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 170. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 81, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra para. 172. 226 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 353, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra para. 173. 227 40