226. The Court finds it pertinent to establish, as in has in other cases, 225 that the State should publish, within six months of notification of this Judgment: (a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once in the Official Gazette, and (b) the entire Judgment, available for one year on an official website that is accessible from abroad. C.2) Rehabilitation C.2.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 227. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[f]ully and adequately compensate Leopoldo García Lucero and his next of kin […], in a manner that takes into account his specific condition, as he is in exile and permanently disabled.” It asked that the Court ensure that “Leopoldo García Lucero and his next of kin have access to the medical and psychiatric/psychological treatment needed to assist in their physical and mental recovery at a specialized facility of his choosing, or the means to secure this recovery.” 228. The representatives asked that Mr. García Lucero and his wife be provided with “the purchase of health insurance that covers pre-existing [conditions] […] and that is recognized in the United Kingdom.” They also stipulated that “if there is no insurance that covers preexisting conditions, the […] Court should order the State of Chile to pay the costs of those treatments that are not covered by health insurance.” The representatives asserted that this was the most viable way of providing Mr. García Lucero with a measure of rehabilitation owing to the failure to redress the acts of torture in a way that was prompt, effective and of good quality, bearing in mind his vulnerable situation. In conclusion, the representatives also asked that the State grant a housing allowance as a measure of rehabilitation. 229. Regarding the measures of rehabilitation, the State contested the request for medical treatment submitted by the Commission and by the representatives. It indicated that the representatives had based their request, “mainly, on the effects of the acts of torture, rather than on the presumed failure of the State to comply with the obligation to investigate and to provide reparation to the victims.” In addition, as already indicated (supra para. 73), it argued that it would be impossible to implement the PRAIS Program outside Chile. C.2.2) Considerations of the Court 230. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission, in their requests for measures to provide medical and psychological treatment for the victim, argue harm that could be related to facts that fall outside the temporal competence of the Court and, therefore, regarding which the Court has not ruled. 231. Despite this, the Court notes that Mr. García Lucero is in a particularly vulnerable situation. 226 In this regard, the Court observes that it has been proved that Mr. García Lucero is 79 years old and suffers from a permanent disability. Also, it has not been contested that Mr. García Lucero was a victim of torture and “political imprisonment,” as recognized by the Valech Commission, with both physical and psychological repercussions. 225 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 189. 226 Regarding the characterization of Mr. García Lucero as a vulnerable person, it should be indicated that Articles 17 and 18 of the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador,” indicate the pertinence of the “protection” of the “elderly” and the “handicapped.” Also, on December 16, 1991, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the “United Nations Principles for Older Persons” (Resolution 46/91). 72