D.2 Public act of recognition of responsibility 234. The Court welcomes the information provided by the State on the different measures of symbolic reparation that it has adopted with respect to the victims of violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship. As it has done on previous opportunities and particularly in the Gelman case, the Court welcomes those State acts that aid in the recovery of the memory of the victims, the recognition of their dignity and the consolation of their families,257 such as the events mentioned in paragraph 232. 235. The Court, however, also takes into consideration the seriousness of the violations committed in this case, as well as the fact that, even more than 44 years later, the whereabouts of Mr. Tassino Asteazú and Mr. González González have not been determined and the investigations and criminal proceedings related to the extrajudicial executions of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio have not concluded. Notwithstanding the value of the symbolic reparations adopted by the State, the abovementioned circumstances make it important that the State, through its high-ranking authorities, publicly reaffirm its willingness to discover the whereabouts of the disappeared victims and to investigate, punish and adequately repair the violations of human rights committed in this case. 236. The Court, therefore, orders Uruguay to hold a public act of recognition of international responsibility relating to the facts of the present case, referring to the violations declared in this judgment, as well as the State’s commitment to comply with the judgment and to discover the whereabouts of the disappeared victims and to investigate, punish and adequately repair the human rights violations committed in this case. The act should be held during a public ceremony conducted by national authorities, in the presence of high-ranking authorities of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, as well as high-ranking authorities of the military and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the National Institute of Human Rights and the Office of the Ombudsman. The public act should also be held in the presence of the victims of this case. The State should come to an agreement with the victims or their representatives on the manner of compliance of this public act,258 as well as on details, such as the place and date of the act. The act should be disseminated by the mass media and must be held within one year of the notification of this judgment. E. Guarantees of non-recurrence E.1 Actions that would ensure the effective investigation of serious violations of human rights committed during the dictatorship 237. The Commission, in its Report on the Merits and in its submission of the case, requested that the Court order the State to “adopt legislative and other measures necessary to ensure that, in practice and through judicial rulings, the non-applicability of the statute of limitations of grave human rights violation is guaranteed in accordance with inter-American standards” and stated that “the State must guarantee that the Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 254; Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 223; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 248 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 265. 257 This includes the possibility that the parties agree that the act, as was requested by the representative (supra para. 231), be held together with the delivery of information on the whereabouts of the detained disappeared persons. 258 60