of the public prosecutor, accessible through no more than three links from the home page, to remain in place until the orders given in this judgment have been fully met. 465. While the State initially expressed no objections to this measure, in its final written arguments it rejected each and every one of the representatives’ claims for reparations. Considerations of the Court 466. As it has done in other cases, the Court holds499 that the State must 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; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official national website accessible to the public. C.3. Requested guarantees of nonrepetition Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 467. The Commission emphasized the need for the State to adopt any measures necessary to prevent incidents similar to those in the instant case from occurring in the future. In particular, the Commission asked the Court to order Peru to implement ongoing human rights programs in armed forces and national police training academies and carry out awarenessraising programs for active-duty military. 468. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt or amend suitable protocols for investigating violations involving the right to life and the right to personal integrity, and to adopt appropriate protocols limiting the use of force by security personnel, to be compatible with the standards provided in international law. Similarly, they noted that Legislative Decree 1095 had been enacted in 2010, regulating the use of force by the military, but it did not meet the standards that this Court has established on the use of force and firearms and was currently facing a constitutional challenge. 469. The State explained that the Forensic Institute has been working under protocols that are compatible with the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Moreover, with respect to the challenges to Legislative Decree 1095, the State noted that this legal standard marks a significant step forward by the State to create a legal framework consistent with the standards set by the Court on the use of force by the military throughout the country. The State pointed out, nonetheless, that it was “fully aware of the challenges facing this standard, which were under review by the Constitutional Court after a constitutional motion was lodged by 6430 citizens.” The State added in its final written arguments that it rejected each and every one of the representatives’ claims for reparations. Considerations of the Court 470. This Court has previously held that the State has the duty to adapt its domestic laws and to “see that its security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right of life of the people under their jurisdiction.” 500. The State must establish precise internal Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 318. 499 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 66, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 126. 500