46 When providing treatment, the individual circumstances and needs of each person shall be taken into account, so that they are offered both individual and family treatment. Such treatment must start after an individual assessment has been conducted, according to what may be agreed individually with each one of those persons. 103. In the case of the medical and psychological treatment of Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler and of the psychological care of his son Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez-Niño, since both are exiled in the United States of America, the State shall pay Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler $25,000.00 (twenty five thousand United States Dollars) to cover the reasonable costs thereof. c) Publication of relevant sections of the Judgment 104. The Court has already stated that the violations against Mr. Wilson GutiérrezSoler impaired fulfillment of his personal and vocational development, while causing irreparable damage to his life and reputation (supra paras. 88 and 89). Therefore, the Court notices approvingly the historical moment during the public hearing, when the agents stood and approached Messrs. Wilson and Ricardo Gutiérrez-Soler to apologize on behalf of Colombia for the events in the instant case. 105. Likewise, the Court deems that the State must disseminate the relevant sections of this Judgment as an additional measure of satisfaction aimed at redressing the substantial damage to Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler’s honor and life project and those of his next of kin, as well as to prevent repetition of the events of the instant case. In this direction, the State must publish, within six months of the date that notice of Judgment be served upon it, at least once in the official gazette and in another national daily newspaper, the Section of this Judgment entitled Proven Facts, without the corresponding footnotes, paragraphs 51 to 59 of the Section entitled Merits, as well as the operative paragraphs herein. d) Dissemination and enforcement of the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of military criminal courts 106. The Court notices that approvingly of the contribution by the State to human rights protection by expressing its willingness to include in the training and update courses for the appropiate officials the study of the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection precedents on “international standards of effectivenes in the access to justice.” In this regard, the Court considers that the State must implement, in the training courses for military criminal court and law enforcement staff a program to analyze the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection precedents on the limits of the jurisdiction of the military criminal courts, as well as the right to due process and to judicial protection, as a way to prevent the investigation and trial of human rights violations by such jurisdiction.47 107. Likewise, the Court considers approvingly the State’s willingness to adopt the necessary measures to use the instant case as a “lesson learned” in National Police staff courses on human rights. On this matter, Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler stated in 47 Cf., inter alia, Case of 19 Merchants, supra nota 42, paras. 165 to 167, 173, 174 and 263; Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 42, paras. 51 to 54; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra nota 42, paras. 112 to 115, 138 and 139; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of 16 August 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 116, 117, 125 and 126; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Judgment of 30 May 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 128 to 132 and 161.