309. Regarding the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible, the representatives argued that the “obligation to investigate and sanction those responsible for the human rights violations committed against the victims in this case should be implemented by two types of proceedings: one criminal and the other constitutional.” They indicated that “based on the judgment delivered by the Court, the State should require the prosecutor’s office to initiate the corresponding investigations against the persons implicated in this case.” They considered that, “in this case, the persons who intervened in the violation of the victims’ rights are fully identified”; they are “the President of the Republic at that time, Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez, because he called a special session to address the issue of the dismissal of the judges; […] each and every member of Congress who voted for the resolution that terminated the judges […] and those who voted in the impeachment proceeding [on December 8, 2004,] and whose names appear in the case file; [and] the judges of the de facto Constitutional Tribunal […], whose decisions and interventions before the local judges, eliminated the possibility of the victims being able to request judicial protection by the remedy of amparo.” With regard to the constitutional responsibility for the violation of rights, they argued that “the State should open a proceeding to obtain reimbursement for the payment made for the reparations that have involved costs for the State” and that the “Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control establishes the proceeding for obtaining reimbursement from third parties, which should be followed in order to comply fully with the principle of investigating and sanctioning those responsible for violating human rights.” The representatives also considered that considering “the public humiliation suffered by the victims in this case and the mistreatment received at the hands of the State for almost nine years […], the publication of the judgment is not sufficient, and they deserve a public apology.” 310. The State indicated that it “w[ould] only implement as a measure of satisfaction” the publication of the Judgment. It also indicated that “it was organizing continual training campaigns not only on judicial independence, but also on different points of law.” 311. The State indicated that “should the Court sentence [it, it] will conduct the necessary investigations in order to establish the responsibility of the persons mentioned by the petitioners.” It also indicated that, based on articles 11(9) and 417 of the Constitution, it “will file a claim for reimbursement against those persons who are declared responsible for the violations alleged by the representatives.” It added that “the exercise of the right to claim reimbursement is not part of the obligation to make reparation to a victim, but rather an obligation of the public administration towards the citizens in relation to the consequences of an act that violates rights.” Considerations of the Court 312. Regarding the other measures of reparation that have been requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and appropriate to redress the violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order the said measures.323 E. Costs and expenses Arguments of the parties 323 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 359, and Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 344. 89