58 XVII OTHER FORMS OF REPARATION 171. The Court will now consider other harmful effects of the facts, which are not of a financial or patrimonial nature, and which could be repaired by carrying out officials acts, including the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the facts of the instant case. Arguments of the Commission 172. The Commission indicated that although the State acknowledged its “institutional responsibility” in the declaration of August 9, 2000, which, in itself, constitutes a transcendental act of satisfaction duly assessed by the Commission, 18 months after this acknowledgement, it has not complied with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations committed by its agents against Maritza Urrutia. Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State, as a measure of satisfaction and guarantee of nonrepetition, to undertake a genuine investigation of the facts and to prosecute and punish those responsible. Arguments of the representatives of the victim 173. The representatives of the victim stated that the acknowledgement of the facts made by the President of the Republic is not sufficient, “because it did not directly hold the country’s Army responsible,” since more than “ten” years have elapsed since the facts occurred and the investigation has not been effective. Accordingly, they requested the Court to order the State to implement the following measures of reparation: a) A public apology for the arbitrary detention and torture of Maritza Urrutia, committed by the Army, so that this will have national transcendence; to this end, they requested that the apology should be made by the same media in which the victim was obliged to make her statement; and b) The obligation to conduct a genuine investigation of the facts and punish those responsible; this case could set an important precedent in the fight against impunity in Guatemala. Arguments of the State 174. The State indicated that it was open to the possibility of a friendly settlement and, should this not be possible, that the Court take into account that: a) The declaration of the President of the Republic of August 9, 2000, constitutes, in itself, an acceptance of the facts and a way of presenting an apology to the victims of the cases indicated at that time, which was reiterated on December 10, 2001, when delivering the reparations in the “Aldea las Dos Erres” case. Consequently, the request for an apology proposed by the representatives is unnecessary; and