- 80 - of acts of violence such as those that occurred in this case.326 If the State does not have such facilities, it must use specialized private or civil society institutions. The provision of this treatment must also take into consideration the specific circumstances and needs of each victim, so that that they are offered collective, family or individual treatment, as agreed with each of them and following individual assessment.327 Lastly, this treatment must be provided, insofar as possible, in the centers nearest to their place of residence. C.3 Other measures requested a) Request for the adoption of different types of measures to avoid the repetition of similar facts and for the creation of a research center 236. Both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State “must undertake legal, administrative and any other measures required to avoid a repetition of such acts” against the members of the UP. In particular, the Commission asked that the State adopt, as a priority, a policy to eradicate violence based on political ideology. The State objected to this request, because it has been working on a general domestic policy to deal with the violence based on political ideology and to protect human rights defenders, rather than a particular one in relation to a specific group. Furthermore, it argued that the said measure exceeded the scope of the instant case and referred to an issue that must be decided in the case of the UP, which is being processed by the Commission. 237. The representatives asked that “to restore the honor and reputation of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas, to guarantee that political crimes such as the one perpetrated […] are not forgotten, and to contribute to the non-repetition of such acts, the State should establish a research center bearing his name, responsible for preserving the historical memory and studying measures to ensure non-repetition of crimes against humanity and genocide.” The State rejected this measure of reparation, because it would seek to associate Manuel Cepeda’s name with the concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity. In the State’s opinion, this would manipulate the truth of the matter and lead to conclusions that could confuse Colombian society. 238. Since the members of the UP were not declared to be victims in this judgment, the Court will abstain from ordering reparations on this aspect. In addition, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to make reparation for the violations that have been declared in this case.328 326 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra note 325, paras. 42 to 45; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 270, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 203. 327 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra note 221, para. 278; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 270, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 37, para. 209. 328 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 359.