112 Rojas; and have further seriously altered their living conditions to their detriment (supra paras. 97(134) to 97(139)). In particular, Pedro Ramírez-Rojas was deeply involved in the efforts made to set him out of jail (supra para. 97(138)); and his son, Marcos Ramírez-Álvarez, was deprived of the opportunity of being raised and cared for by his father, and had to remain under the custody of Filomena Ramírez-Rojas (supra paras. 97(135) and 97(137)). 275. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ next of kin must receive compensation. Therefore, the Court fixes, in equity, the amount of US $ 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to be paid to Pedro Ramírez-Rojas; the amount of US $ 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to be paid to Filomena Ramírez-Rojas; the amount of US $ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to be paid to each of Santa, Julio, Obdulia, Marcelino and Adela Ramírez-Rojas; the amount of US $ 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to be paid to María Alejandra Rojas (deceased); and the amount of US $ 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to be paid to the minor Marcos Ramírez-Álvarez. D) OTHER FORMS OF REPARATION (MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND GUARANTEES OF NON-REPETITION 276. In this section, the Court shall determine the measures of satisfaction tending to remedy non pecuniary damage; the Court shall further order measures that will have public effects. Said measures intend, inter alia, to acknowledge the victims’ right to privacy and to disseminate a message of official reproach for the violations of the human rights committed, as well as to prevent future violations as those dealt with in the instant case.196 Arguments of the Commission 277. As regards other forms of reparation, the Commission pointed out the following: a) The Court should order the State “to adopt forthwith such measures as may be necessary to stop the violations of the human rights of Wilson GarcíaAsto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas specified both in the instant application, and particularly, to provide a new trial in compliance with the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia, which cannot be subject of judicial discretional and flexible interpretations of criminal laws, with the rights to a due process of law, and to a fair trial;” b) Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas must “receive moral public reparation addressing their studies and professional activities, taking into account that as regards the latter, his activities in the public administration were 196 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 294; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 93; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 7, para. 163.