(supra para. 75). As a result of the foregoing, this Court establishes that the State must continue and conclude, within a reasonable time, the investigation of the said facts in the ordinary jurisdiction, based on the domestic norms that will allow those responsible to be identified, prosecuted and punished, as appropriate, taking into account that the said facts took place in the context of a systematic pattern of human right violations. 221. Also, owing to the special characteristics of the case, it is relevant that the criminal investigation receive the testimony of the victim and perform a forensic physical and psychological examination (supra para. 137). In addition, the investigation must be conducted in accordance with the corresponding international norms, in particular the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to both of which Chile is a State Party. 222. In addition, in keeping with the considerations on the possibility of filing a civil action within the framework of the investigation of the facts and the respective criminal proceedings (supra para. 205), if this occurs, the State must enable Mr. García Lucero to file claims for measures of reparation established in the applicable domestic laws. 223. Furthermore, in the context of this case, Decree Law No. 2,191 cannot represent an obstacle to the implementation of actions aimed at the investigation, prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible. In this regard, it should be recalled that, in the instant case, the State must proceed as indicated in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile (supra para. 154). C. Measures of satisfaction and rehabilitation 224. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 224 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case and the effects on the victim arising from the violations of the American Convention declared against him, the Court finds it pertinent to decide the following measures of reparation. C.1) Measure of satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the Judgment C.1.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 225. The representatives asked the Court to order the President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, “to address a private letter to Mr. García Lucero apologizing to him, to his wife Elena [García], and to the other members of his direct family, in the name of the State, owing to the severity of the human rights violations, and the suffering caused as a result of the State’s action or inaction for almost four decades.” The Commission, without prejudice to requesting that “Mr. García [Lucero] and his family receive integral and adequate reparation for the human rights violations,” did not refer specifically to this measure. For its part, the State contested this measure. C.1.2) Considerations of the Court 224 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 177. 71