221. The State indicated that, should the Court deliver a judgment, “it commits to implement the measures regarding publication and the dissemination thereof.” The Court notes that the Memorandum of Understanding establishes that the State commit to ”publishing in two newspapers of national circulation the summary of the Report on the Merits and to publish the entire document on the Webpages of the Secretariats proposed by the representatives” (supra para. 2(d)). 222. Therefore, the Court orders, as it has done in other cases, 163 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible and adequate font: a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette and in the Diario Semanario Judicial of the Federation and its Gazette; b) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in a newspaper of wide national circulation and c) the complete judgment, available for one year, on the official Website of the Government of Mexico in a manner that is available to the public and on the initial page of the Website. The State shall immediately inform the Curt once it has published each of the above, irrespective of the period of one year to present its first report, as ordered in Operative Paragraph 12 of this judgment. C.2 Public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility 223. The representatives requested, in order to redress the damage caused to the victims, the holding of a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility and apology to the victims. They indicated that to be “an effective measure of satisfaction,” such act “must have the participation of senior authorities of the State, held in the presence of, and in coordination with the prior agreement, of the victims and their representatives.” The Commission did not specifically refer to this measure. 224. The State affirmed that, in the event that the Court found the State responsible, it committed to hold the act of acknowledgement. The Court noted that the Memorandum of Understanding establishes that State “senior officials shall offer the victims of the case an Act of Public Apology and Acknowledgement of Responsibility for the events indicated by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. The format of such act will be coordinated with the victims and their representatives” (supra para. 2(d)). 225. The Court deems it necessary to order, with the purpose of repairing the harm caused to the victim and to avoid that events such as in this case are not repeated, that the State hold a public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility with regard to the events of the present case. At that act, there must be references to the human rights violations declared in this judgment. The act shall be held in a public ceremony in the presence of senior State officials and of the victims declared in this judgment, if they so wish, and their representatives. 164 226. The State, the victims and/or their representatives must agree on the means of compliance of the public act and on specific aspects, such as the place and date on which it will be held. 165 In addition, the State shall ensure that the victims have the possibility of attending, for which it should pay the transportation expenses. The Court, as it has done in other cases, 166 orders that the State disseminate the act by the broadest possible means of communication, including the radio, television and social media. The State authorities who should be present or participate in the act must be senior State officials, including senior officials of the Secretariat of Justice. The State shall have one year 163 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79 and Case of Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 167. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 81 and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 276. 164 165 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 Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 277. 166 See, for example, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 445 and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 276. 51