- 122 - the Republic, because the former is the entity that functions as a link between human rights bodies and the Federal Government. Thus, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “would – by means of a press release – publish the relevant parts of the judgment, which would be distributed on official websites, including the social networks.” It also proposed that the publication be made, once, in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación and the Federation’s Official Gazette. 344. The Court finds it pertinent to require, as it has in other cases, 453 that the State make the following publications within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, in a newspaper with widespread national circulation, and in a widely read newspaper in the state of Mexico, in an legible font and appropriate letter size, and (b) the entire judgment, available for at least one year, on the websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government of the state of Mexico, in a way that is accessible to the public from the opening page of the said websites. 345. The State must inform the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications required, regardless of the one-year time frame to present its first report established in the operative paragraphs of this judgment. D.2.b Act to acknowledge responsibility and offer a public apology 346. The representatives asked the Court, first, to order the Mexican State to offer the women a public apology, at the same time undertaking to ensure that facts such as those of this case are never repeated. In particular, they proposed that the apology be made “in an announcement to be published by the same media in which the official summary of the Court’s judgment is published, signed by the most senior representatives of the Federal Government and of the government of the state of Mexico, and to be published on the same day, so that the judgment provides a context to the apology.” The State indicated that it had already made a public acknowledgement of its responsibility, and had issued a public apology to the victims in this case; it therefore considered that the publication of the judgment was sufficient to respond to the representative’s request. 347. This Court appreciates the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State before the Commission and the Court, which could represent partial satisfaction for the victims in light of the violations declared in this judgment.454 However, the Court finds it necessary, in order to redress the harm caused to the victims and to avoid facts such as those of this case being repeated, to require that Mexico organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility and make a public apology for the facts of this case.455 In particular, Cf., inter alia, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 207; Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 197; Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 300, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 299. 453 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 576, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 303. 454 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 261; Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 158; Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, para. 285; Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 257; Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. 455