92 D.3. Measures of satisfaction D.3.1. Public act of acknowledgement of responsibility 305. The Commission requested the recovery of the memory of the deceased and disappeared victims. The representatives did not refer to this point in their pleadings and motions brief. 360 The State pointed out in its answering brief that the PNR has an office in the municipality of Rabinal and provides “measures to dignify the victims (moral and community redress).” 306. As it has done in other cases against Guatemala, 361 the Court orders the State to carry out a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility in which reference is made to the facts of the case, to the context of serious and massive human rights violations perpetrated by the State, and to the international responsibility declared in the terms of this judgment. The act shall take place in the village of Chichupac, in Spanish and in the Maya Achí language, and shall be broadcast on television and/or radio, within one year from notification of this judgment. In addition, given the specific characteristics of this case, and in order to create awareness of the consequences of the facts of this case, high-level State officials must be present at this event. The organization and details of the public ceremony shall be agreed upon with the victims and their representatives. In addition, the State shall cover the necessary transportation costs so that the victims who are in Guatemala can attend the ceremony of acknowledgment of responsibility. D.3.2. Publication of the judgment 307. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to establish and disseminate the historical truth of the facts. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish the official summary of the judgment in a newspaper with wide circulation and in the Official Gazette, as well as the full version of the judgment with the names of the victims, for a period of one year, on an official Guatemalan website. 308. The State held that the representatives “[were] going too far by requesting the publication of the judgment as a measure of reparation, since the Court still [had] to analyze the preliminary objections presented […]. Therefore, the State [made] no comment on this request.” In its final written arguments, the State asked the Court to consider the country’s economic situation when requiring the said publications in a newspaper of major circulation and in the Official Gazette. 309. As it has done in other cases against Guatemala, 362 the Court orders the State to publish in a legible and adequate font size, in the Spanish and Maya Achí languages, and within six months of notification of this judgment: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette and in a national newspaper with wide circulation, and b) this judgment in its entirety, together with its annexes, available for at least one year, on an official website of the State. The State shall provide a translation of the official summary and the judgment, which shall be endorsed by the representatives before being published. 363 The State shall immediately inform this Court once it proceeds to issue each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term to submit its first report as ordered in operative paragraph 28 of this judgment. D.4. Guarantees of non-repetition 360 In their final written arguments, that is, extemporaneously, the representatives requested that the State be ordered to hold a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility. 361 The State has complied with this measure of reparation, for example, in the Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of July 10, 2007, considering paragraph 7, and the Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of September 4, 2012, considering paragraph 16. 362 The State has complied with this measure of reparation, for example, in the Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of July 6, 2011, first operative paragraph, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of May 3, 2016, first operative paragraph. 363 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 274.