not inform their intention to receive such care within the established period, the State is excused from providing it. D. Measures of satisfaction 230. The Commission considered that the State should “adequately repair the victims” in the “moral […] aspect.” 231. The representative requested that the Court order that the State publish the judgment in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Uruguay.” It also asked that Uruguay “hold an act of apology and recognition of the actions of the State,” which is to be done jointly with the delivery of information on the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. 232. The State noted that, in March 2012, in compliance with the Court’s decision in the Gelman case, it held a public act of recognition of responsibility and that on the day of the act a plaque was placed in the building that was the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense’s Intelligence Service during the dictatorship in homage to “the victims who were clandestinely detained there.” It added that, since December 9, 2016, the building houses the National Institute of Human Rights and is “the first site of recovered memory in Uruguay.” It also pointed out that Law 19,641, of July 13, 2018, “declared and created sites of Historical Memory of the Recent Past.”253 It also indicated the “existence of the Memorial of Remembering the Detained-Disappeared, also known as the Memorial of the Disappeared, located in the Parque Carlos Vaz Ferreira in the Cerro de Montevideo,” inaugurated on December 10, 2001, and declared a National Historical Monument in 2014. The State also underscored that the Truth and Justice Working Group and the Secretariat of Human Rights for the Recent Past published a “Guide of places of memory of the recent past of Uruguay,” which directly refers to the alleged victims of this case.254 It also provided information about the placing of plaques in the school where Mr. González González studied and the location where Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio were extrajudicially executed.255 D.1. Publication and dissemination of the judgment 233. The Court, as in other cases,256 orders that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette, in a legible and adequate font; (b) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in a newspaper of widespread national circulation, in a legible and adequate font, and (c) the complete judgment, available for one year, on an official Web site of the National Government. The State must immediately inform the Court when it has published each of the above, regardless of the period of one year to present its first report ordered in operative paragraph 9 of this judgment. The State remitted the “First Annual Memorial 2018-2019” of the Honorary National Commission of Massacre Sites (evidence file, annex XXXVIII to the answering brief, fs. 5199 to 5310). 253 254 3110). 255 The State remitted this document (cf. Evidence file, annex XX to the answering brief, fs. 2999 to Cf. Evidence file, annex XVII to the answering brief, fs. 2699 to 2701. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, para. 169. 256 59