70 and whereabouts of the victims and the prosecution of those responsible, the State has an obligation, as a measure of reparation aimed at satisfying the right of society as a whole to know the truth, to use appropriate mechanisms to keep alive the memory of the victims and give transparency to events in which human rights were violated, through the establishment of public memorials, monuments or museums, etc. 235. In several cases, the Court has ordered the construction of monuments, usually accompanied by the placement of a plaque describing the facts of the case and containing the names of the victims,319 or the placement of commemorative plaques at existing monuments or significant public spaces,320 in order to recall the events that resulted in human rights violations, keep alive the memory of the victims, and awaken public awareness in order to prevent the repetition of such grave events in the future. In other cases, the Court has considered requests for the construction of a museum 321 and a memorial park.322 236. The Court appreciates the State’s willingness to comply with the reparation requested by the representatives in this case. Given the scale of the systematic practice of forced disappearance of children during the armed conflict in El Salvador, the context in which the facts of the present case took place, the Court considers it important to order that the State, as part of an effort to build and preserve the collective memory regarding the forced disappearance of children, establish a “garden museum” to remember the children who were forcibly disappeared during the armed conflict. The State is granted a period of five years from notification of this judgment to build a “garden museum.” e) Request for a comprehensive psychosocial support program for the next of kin of children who disappeared during the armed conflict and for young people who have been found and who require it 237. The representatives argued that the next of kin of disappeared persons and of those who were found again have suffered severe trauma from the moment of their separation, and that this harm has proven to be irreversible and transmissible to future generations. Consequently, the representatives considered that the State should make a commitment to rebuild these family relationships by creating a psychosocial support program for the young people who have been found again, and their next of kin, with a special fund for that purpose, overseen by experts in the matter. Also, based on the expert opinion of Martha de la Concepción Cabrera Cruz regarding the scope of transgenerational harm, the representatives emphasized three aspects resulting from forced disappearance: the rupture of family and social ties; the multigenerational damage that is implicitly reproduced by a victim in his or her human relationships; and the need for collective healing. The representatives considered that, “given the systematic and collective pattern that gave rise to the disappearances, this was not ordinary or common violence, but rather a specific type of political Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 44. f); Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia, supra, para. 273; Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 115; Case of Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 218; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 315; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 278; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 177; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 471; and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 265. 319 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 286; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 408; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 454; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 236; Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 277; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 201; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251. 320 321 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 169 and 170. 322 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 347 to 349.